Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
I will refer back to a post I made at the beginning of this thread...
I think it is a travesty that the name of the accused is published at the outset - prior to there being any proof of wrongdoing.
IMO, the accused should have the same rights to privacy as the accuser.
Then, if/when they are convicted - have at 'er. But until such point, it is very unfair to the accused that their name is dragged through the mud before the facts are presented.
Even though no charges will be laid, for a great many people, Kane is still guilty.
|
I don't think this should be exclusive to rape cases either. I get that the public wants to know who and what happened in violent crimes, but who does it actually benefit?
Edit: Although then how do you canvass for additional information, and if the person is guilty, then they could still pose a risk to the public before going to trial.