Saturday, October 3, 2009

Keep accused names secret?

A reader (Savant) suggests that the names of accused should be withheld pending trial. Savant notes that the reporting of charges is usually big news while the report of an acquittal is minor.

There's some truth there -- I had a client who made the front page of the Sun on arrest and, when charges were stayed years later, had no media coverage at all.

That said, I must respectfully disagree with Savant here. To my mind our criminal system is too hidden as it is. The way wrongful convictions come to light, for example, is by publicity. Would Truscott have been vindicated without the press?

Still, Savant is right that being charged is not being convicted.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

416 225 2777

1 comment:

Savant said...

In a sadly ironic aside, and in a similar case as you discussed the other day, we read in the news how a person accused of a crime (invitation to sexual touching) committed suicide after being charged, and subsequently having his name published. Would this man be alive had his identity been only been revealed upon a conviction? One can only speculate.

I think my biggest issue with the 'name and shame' culture in the media is that it can be easily abused to harass people. One only needs to look at David Letterman to see how one can be pressured by the simple threat of exposure. With any kind of sexual assult charge, especially if it involves kids, your career is basically over regardless of whether you are convicted.