Amazon.com Widgets

Should the right to anonymity be a fundamental right for criminals?

Asked by: poora
  • What if you turn out to be innocent?

    When the media reports on people accused of crimes it can ruin their lives even if they turn out to be innocent. It can also bias juries and this isn't always caught by the judges in the vetting process especially if jurors feel so self-righteous they hide their bias on purpose.

    After conviction name them! But before then it should be a secret.

  • In a trial, yes.

    Blacks are more likely to get the death penalty, men get harsher sentencing then women, women are favored in custody cases, are more likely to be believed in domestic violence cases, and if men report domestic violence cases, people will call him "weak" and "feminine" and if a women touches a man's chest when the man says stop, the entire police station will laugh him out of the station for reporting it, but if a women reports a man touching her breasts when she says stop, that is taken more seriously. Finding ways to hold trials where both the offender and the victim remain anonymous, will reduce jury bias. We will use language like "offender punched spouse" instead of "he punched his wife" or "she punched her husband" or "they were at a party" instead of he was at a party. This may not be completely possible. For example, in a rape case, the offenders and victims gender might sometimes be revealed but we must keep then anonymous to the greatest extent possible.

  • It did say Criminals....

    The statement said criminals which I would take to mean "Already found guilty". But I swear if I see one more celebrity crackhead domestic violence case I may just cut out TV permanently. I don't care about Celebrities caught drunk driving on empty streets, but the drunk driver who took out 3 kids on a major highway gets no attention brought to them. Give us the info on the RIGHT criminals!!!


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.