So you're getting this worked up over a women who accused imaginary men of raping her in an imaginary house,
It's an important issue.
because you NEED to know who she is so you can stay away from her
It's important to avoid false accusers.
and it's your right to know that so that you can promote freedom and democracy and the greater good,
That's how democracy works.
by discriminating the people who are either victims of unproven violence, false accusers or mentally insane,
It's important to protect yourself from false accusers and mentally insane people. And I don't suggest that one needs to protect oneself from actual victims of unproven violence. I didn't say anything remotely like that.
Oh, and anyone ever accused of any crime, even if there wasn't enough evidence for them to even go to trial, no matter how long ago that was.
This information should be available to the public within certain limits. That we expunge the records of drunk drivers after 10 years is not a reason to withhold the names of false rape accusers.
That's what happens when it reaches the judiciary.
Nope. You are factually incorrect. The judiciary does not investigate criminal cases. Ever.
It is so because the judiciary is where one can make their defense,
Not if they can't uncover evidence known to some member of the public but not to the defendant.
You know, not jailing someone until you can prove them to be guilty or unless they pose a risk to the production of evidence or they may flee is how almost every democracy
No it's not. All developed countries have arraignment and allow detention until then. All of them have a system of bail and people that can't afford bail.
How is being thrown in jail the treatment for innocent people? Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold up there, does it?
Do people often tell you that you drink too much?
Funny how the land of freedom has the highest number of people incarcerated in the world,
Why are you changing the subject again? This thread is about what information should be public. If you want to discuss incarceration rates, start your own thread.
the prosecution has to prove 3 things: 1- The crime happened. 2-The defendant was the one who did it. 3- The defendant can and should be held accountable and be punished for it.
This has nothing to do with what information should be public
If number one is not proven, then anyone that claims the defendant committed the crime is defaming them, and can be sued.
Nope. Complaints to police are privileged.
However, here we get your juvenile interjection that this is not how it works and that a complaint to the police is never ever defamation.
Yup. Always privileged.
That is conditioned actually, but you didn't even think of it before advocating everything be made public,
I didn't advocate that everything should be public. This is another in a long list of things you made up.
When A goes to the Police and accuses B of a crime, the police doesn't arrest B because that's an illegal abuse of their power,
Yeah right! When A calls 911 to say that B is in the process of robbing a bank, the police NEVER arrest B because that's an abuse of power! Hahahahaha! Idiot.
What you want is for anyone who was ever investigated as a suspect of a crime to carry the same freaking stigma as someone who was tried for a crime,
Didn't say that. You made it up. You are a dishonest person
ALL THAT INFORMATION BECOMES PUBLIC AT THE TRIAL.
Evidence that is unknown to the prosecutor doesn't become public at trial, you dimwit. Got that?Because you didn't get that the other times. And no, nobody can volunteer new evidence at trial.
I kind of understand this one
I doubt that!
And we all know that we should have the right to avoid people who "probably" committed crimes but were not proven to You can do that already.
No I can't. Not if probable cause determinations are secret.
Because those people who "prbably" committed a crime go to trial.
Only in your Nazi imaginary system. Everywhere else, many people who are arrested don't go to trial. And the burden of proof to go to trial is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The ones that don't are the ones that probably didn't do anything.
You think "not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is the same as "probably didn't do anything". You're a retard.
Did you know we have a system of expungement? I didn't think you'd mention that since it screws your entire point.
If it was useless, why would people that can afford it do it? And why do I have to explain this to you?
Is there any point to discussing this with someone too lazy to read the facts of the case? What's the point in pretending to be an expert while you have been too lazy to read the facts?
Your scenarios assume the police is wrong, incompetent and corrupt, the judiciary is wrong, incompetent and corrupt,
No they don't. They only assume it's possible and that it should be known if they are.
I still don't see how releasing the names of the accused and accuser would help with anything other than further discrimination in society.
Because you are unintelligent and uneducated. You're also dishonest and boring.