Life goes on fine without knowing who all the people are in courts around the world are right now. Unless the public is involved or impacted, or there’s an entity like a business or association on trial, I don’t really see what lacking the choice of anonymity does to help anyone, especially the innocent.
I’m no lawyer though and it’s surely not as simple as that. But just like anything involving personal or sensitive information about a person, it should be protected. Especially when, at least in principle, the justice system is there to protect, under innocence until proven guilty with no bias.
…a principle that is fundamental to our society and method of government: except in extraordinary circumstances, the courts of the land are open to the public. This principle arises out of the belief that exposure to public scrutiny is the surest safeguard against any risk of the courts abusing their considerable powers. …"
I understand that it’s tragic that some innocent people are destroyed either directly or indirectly by the justice system, both the unjustly accused that are acquitted, and also those wrongly found guilty. Lindy Chamberlain anyone? Hell, people have been hanged and later proven innocent. And the media in general sucks.
But I think the alternative to open justice would end up being a lot worse.
Let’s be honest. We all know who we’re talking about in this specific case, right? Whether the media is allowed to print the name or not doesn’t matter at all.
Yeah, I imagine high-profile cases would be quite obvious :)
I don’t know if there’s anything stopping a person going to the media about a case before it even starts either, but imagine that’s a tactic. Cochran proved the power of appeal to the public so I imagine that someone on a mission will try whatever advantage possible.
In my personal opinion? I guess.
Life goes on fine without knowing who all the people are in courts around the world are right now. Unless the public is involved or impacted, or there’s an entity like a business or association on trial, I don’t really see what lacking the choice of anonymity does to help anyone, especially the innocent.
I’m no lawyer though and it’s surely not as simple as that. But just like anything involving personal or sensitive information about a person, it should be protected. Especially when, at least in principle, the justice system is there to protect, under innocence until proven guilty with no bias.
"Principle of open justice
…a principle that is fundamental to our society and method of government: except in extraordinary circumstances, the courts of the land are open to the public. This principle arises out of the belief that exposure to public scrutiny is the surest safeguard against any risk of the courts abusing their considerable powers. …"
Lots more at Source
I understand that it’s tragic that some innocent people are destroyed either directly or indirectly by the justice system, both the unjustly accused that are acquitted, and also those wrongly found guilty. Lindy Chamberlain anyone? Hell, people have been hanged and later proven innocent. And the media in general sucks.
But I think the alternative to open justice would end up being a lot worse.
Do you think the idea behind open justice would lose any merit if a person on trial has their name redacted from media publications?
I’m not lost on the irony of, public scrutinises court, good; public also scrutinises defendant, bad.
Honestly, I think in a lot of cases, it’s silly.
Let’s be honest. We all know who we’re talking about in this specific case, right? Whether the media is allowed to print the name or not doesn’t matter at all.
Yeah, I imagine high-profile cases would be quite obvious :)
I don’t know if there’s anything stopping a person going to the media about a case before it even starts either, but imagine that’s a tactic. Cochran proved the power of appeal to the public so I imagine that someone on a mission will try whatever advantage possible.