I'd wager you would be ok if your face showed up in national television as the primary suspect for a series of gruesome murders
I would say the policy is still in the best interest of the public and support it, even if it was inconvenient for me. That's how democracy works.
I apologize if my mention of trial as the whole of the judicial procedure (civil law) was not appropriate.
Why are you changing the subject to civil law now? You were just talking about prosecutors, and now civil law? You need Ritalin.
That seems weird to me. THE WITNESSES AREN'T! The defendant isn't! But you want the accused mursderer's name secret because she might be retaliated agaisnt!
The accuser is the state.
No, the plaintiff is the state. You do understand at least that much, right? Do you really not know the difference? And I didn't say who the accuser was. I just said "accused murderer". Why are you making up fake stuff to argue with? You don't really have a point, you just like to argue. I said the names of criminal complainants and accused persons should be public, and you have blathered about tort law, burden of proof, habeas corpus, and all kinds of wacky things that have nothing to do with my statement. It's boring.
Regarding your defendant being jailed: what? Innocent until proven guilty exists to prevent exactly that.
Jesus fucking Christ! You can't really be this dumb. You are saying that we shouldn't arrest people based on probable cause and hold them until trial? You've gone from fascist to anarchist!
Where I live the only way for someone who wasn't caught in the act to be jailed is for a judicial process to be started by the prosecution,
That's not guilt!
Because Tim can't remember he wasn't with his car, the cops can't verify that and neither can the lawyer?
True! Often cops and defense investigators can't verify facts without help. Last week you parked at a shopping mall. 35 people saw you. Can you tell your lawyer how to contact them? Have a nice time in prison.
Are the investigators and the defense so incompetent that they need a third party to do their job?
Yes, investigators and the defense are so incompetent as witnesses that they need evidence.
If so it makes a lot more sense to make sure everyone, related or not, knows about everything, but that's a crutch for the already incompetent workers, is it not? "We don't need to dig into this because if there's something to be said, someone with a strong sense of justice will come forward."
This is absurd wingnuttery. That investigators can get unsolicited information from the public does not imply that they think they don't need to dig. The best outcome is that they have access to all information, that which they can dig on their own, and that which they can't, in order to arrive at the best possible conclusion.
And in that same kind of scenario, no criminal friend of the accused or the accused may ever be able to intimidate the victim into not telling the truth thanks to a piece of information like their freaking name and the name of their buddy? Isn't that a bit far fetched?
Isn't it a bit far fetched to say that the friend needs to read this in the newspaper and couldn't get the information from his friend?
We don't protect the names of any other criminals for fear of retaliation. Really? Wow.
Yes. We put the names of drunk driving suspects in newspapers even though it surely causes innocent people to lose their jobs. Really.
Did you know that there is an international human rights discussion going on whether one should be forever burdened by crimes they were accused of but never found guilty for the sake of other people having access to that information?
Did you know we have a system of expungement?
we all know how people shunned by society are likely to rehabilitate themselves and not commit any crime, right?
We all know how most people who are charges with crimes and not convicted are not shunned out of society, right? And we all know that saying "I don't want to date women who have made multiple, unsustained allegations of sex crimes or domestic violence," or "I don't want to date a man after a judge found probable cause to believe he raped little boys, even if he wasn't convicted" is not "shunned out of society" right?
And we all know that we should have the right to avoid people who "probably" committed crimes but were not proven to
(More)