Defendant Anonymity?

[Tonk]

Why single this out for a particular type of crime? It should be all or nothing. You don't think there is a stigma for thieves or murderers? You think people's opinion if OJ killed those people are not would be different if it wasn't a media circus?

Couple of people asked where the OP is from... I am from the UK, as is my friend, however the course is with a multi-national education institution, so views from all the world are valid.

Someone suggested listing country as a factor. - It was considered, as was religions, and other factors - however in order to make any meaningful comparisons a LOT of responses would be required from each country. Perhaps as a follow up different analysis could be done between selected countries.

To all the people saying, why not give anonymity - Take a look at the Jimmy Saville case - A number of people reported incidents to the police many years ago, but they were largely dismissed. IF these cases were publicised it's likely that other victims would have come forward at the time, and the prosecution taken more seriously. - I don't offer this as cause in it's own right, but as an example to consider the other side of the argument.

Personally - I think there is stigma for theft / murder - I'm not so sure if the stigma (or public mistrust) hangs around as long for those crimes. At the end of the day it's not my survey or thesis though. Perhaps a narrower scope generates more focussed responses. If you broadened it to all crimes a) you might undermine confidence in the judicial system, and b) the responses might be along the lines of "Yes for this crime, no for that crime"

Thanks to all those that have completed the survey so far, it's helped boost the numbers a bit... more responses are still needed however, so if you're interested in this topic, and not yet completed the survey, the link is on the first page.

Thanks

[nextormento]

You may be fine with having what you say be limited and having information be censored

[...]don't dictate to other nations that they should do it your way

Nobody is advocating censorship. I live in a country where censorship was a thing not long ago: it's not cool, I don't want it. Advocating for privacy is not censorship though. You are still to make the connection between freedom and obligation to share information. Freedom of information has a clear scope that doesn't include trials.

I don't think anyone is forcing anything onto anyone: we're discussing the merits of privacy.

IF these cases were publicised it's likely that other victims would have come forward at the time, and the prosecution taken more seriously.

I honestly think that's the strongest case that can be made here. Much stronger than the slippery slopes proposed in the last two pages.

I would argue that reports in Savile's case were not taken seriously because he was high profile: had the reports been filed with only his ID number, perhaps someone would have noticed a huge pile of cases against the same person. It is anonymity what make victims come forward; and it is anonymity what makes report processing work well independently of the defendant.

a) you might undermine confidence in the judicial system, and b) the responses might be along the lines of "Yes for this crime, no for that crime"

I believe that the desire to make this matters public is what undermines confidence. It's true we should generally advocate for transparency, and hold institutions to the greatest *scrutiny* all the time. However, that can be achieved through 3rd parties, random samples, etc. Besides, scrutiny is not mistrust.

I feel that advocates of publicity already lack confidence in the judicial system: they want to pass their own judgement. It's simply advocating for a society of vigilantism. With that mindset, I'm not sure why we would need a judicial system at all. They don't fancy that justice is -supposedly- blind after all.

And when the system deems the criminals able to be reinserted, they want to know who they are, and what they did; just in case they can stigmatize them further, and put at risk the whole point of having justice in the first place. This endemic mistrust is what constitutes the greatest risk for the state. Wanting identities to go public is but one extra token of mistrust.

[Tzalix]

....And this is precisely why I endorse our legal system over many others. You can't possibly be serious. Of course the victim and the defendant are relevant, they're the point of the whole bloody case!

I fail to see why you can't take this idea seriously. The identity of the people involved is not relevant in any way. Deciding who is guilty and making sure they pay accordingly is the point of the case.

Also yes I will defend individual liberty and freedom of speech over government control of said speech ever day of my life here. You may be fine with having what you say be limited and having information be censored, but there's a growing movement in the United States to put a stop to a whole lot of that nonsense and was the entire point of the Freedom of Information Act.

I've spent a good portion of my life fighting for free speech and I strongly oppose censoring of information in the vast majority of cases. But in this case I really believe that the information does more harm than good. In fact, it does no good, only harm.

It's fine if you don't want to know these things, but don't dictate to other nations that they should do it your way.

I'm not in any way trying to tell other nations how they should be doing things, I'm sharing my opinions on an online forum.

Our way works for us, and truthfully, I think it's the best; but I'm an American born and bred. No shame of that ever.

Your nationality doesn't seem very relevant.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Fuck freedom of information, essentially?

There is no such thing as freedom of information and you are a sadly deluded person if you think there is. Try the following scenarios, gathering information based on taxpayer funded operations and tell me how your freedom of information search goes:

1) Walk up to Fort Knox and ask exactly how much gold they have stored there
2) Call the FBI and ask how many agents they have in the field
3) Less drastic then the first 2, go to your local police station and ask how many firearms they keep on site, and what make and caliber they are

Now you are going to argue that those pieces of information are guarded in the general populations best interests and for security purposes right? This is essentially the same thing...If you (even as a regular person, I am going on the assumption you are not a celebrity) were ever arrested for..oh..lets say a child pornography ring..and the paper gets ahold of it and publishes it front page with your picture..your life is over..doesn't matter you are innocent or not. As soon as someone picks up the paper or watches the news and sees Joe Schmo arrested for something like that, that person is forever tarred and feathered in their opinion and no amount of newspaper retractions will convince them you didn't somehow get off when you should have been convicted, nor will your acquittal be given the same amount of headlines and pomp that your arrest did. THIS is why information regarding highly inflammatory cases/arrests/trials need to be kept behind closed doors until a guilty verdict is released

[Tonk]

In some crimes Victims are routinely given anonymity. Defendants don't often get the same level of protection despite accusations potentially ruining their life. Obviously if/when found guilty it's usually in the public interest for the names to be made public, but the stigma of some accusations can potentially ruin a person's life even if later found innocent.

A very good friend of mine is doing their thesis on public perception of a defendant's right (or not) to anonymity in sex crimes, and needs more people to share their views / opinions, and especially to complete a short survey (seriously 5-10 mins tops).

There is a good deal of reporting and speculation in this area in the UK, and the UK is where the survey is based, however public perception from other countries is just as valid. If you have a few minutes to spare can you please complete the survey at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5R7H9KT

Many thanks.

Thanks to all those that have responded so far... The survey will be taken offline soon, however a few more responses are needed. If you have not been through this and have a few minutes spare it would be very much appreciated.

Thanks again

Tonk