The UK media should not be allowed to publish the identity of an accused person until they have had a fair trial. Victims/witnesses should also be prevented from going to the media for the same reason. If the media identifies an accused then it should be law that they must also report the verdict/evidence. This would encourage the media to stop reporting opinions as facts.
We do not reveal the names of the victim because it may prevent them coming forward with complaints however, we gaily waive the rights of the accused and flaunt their presumed guilt in the tabloids as if a fair trial was merely a nicety. How many innocent lives (and families) have been ruined because of our love of the garish gutter press headline?
Achieving an impartial jury as mandated by our Constitution is already impossible. Were one to disclose the name of the accused before the trial so that any potential jurors may hear it only adds to the impossibility and rids their minds of the presumption of innocence. The media tends to not look upon these cases fairly, and so a bias is already formed in the minds of men before the trial starts; this not only makes the trial unfair, but also ruins the (possibly innocent) accused's reputation.
Lynching style justice has disappeared, only to be replaced by media lynching which can be just as cruel and unfair. This is not to say that murderers should be given a blank check and be allowed to hide from the public: the point is, they are NOT murderers until found guilty in a court of law. If we could at least trust our media to be fair and balanced, a little leeway could be tolerable, but most of the big heads who run media conglomerates are just as criminal as Charles Manson -except they have a huge decoy machine at their service.
The public typically makes judgement quickly because the media tends to portray suspects in a light that is either favorable or unfavorable. In the Zimmerman case, he was found legally to be innocent, but his life has been ruined by the trial. You are innocent until proven guilty, and the media and the public do not have the authority to pass judgement without the facts or being in the trial.
The problem is that many people strongly believe that the suspect is guilty, even though they have no evidence to justify that. Some of these people than send threats to the suspect, damage their property or other things. And when the suspect is found not guilty they probably don't believe it and hurt or kill the suspect, because they believe he deserves it. Also the suspect will surely have it much harder time applying to a new job or similar, simply because his name is linked to a specific crime, even though he was found not guilty. The suspect will always have to justify himself/ herself for being accused, so no, their names should not be revealed to the public.
I will start my argument with an example. Look to the Zimmerman case. Zimmerman, whether you believe he was guilty or not is now a complete icon in almost a new Civil Rights movement. The media caught hold of the case, exploited Zimmerman's name, ruined his identity, caused him death threats, all while he was ruled innocent. If found guilty the public should have a right to know. But for the sake of the men and women on trial and their social status, keeping the names secret would be ideal.
There are several instances in which the suspects name was revealed, which then resulted in them being fired, broken relationships, and being labeled a criminal, even when it is found out that they ere innocent. However, when they actually go to trial it would be fine to say their name
Whether they are guilty or not, as long as those people were not yet proven guilty, their names should not be revealed! They are still suspects. For instance, if a certain person became a suspect and his name was revealed... And then it was proven that he is not guilty, think of the bad things that might have happened on the time when his name was revealed to the public.
This should be done because of the following reasons:
1) Raise awareness to the public - especially in local news
2) Perhaps bring forward other victims of the same crime (eg. Jimmy Saville scandal)
3) The public could contribute to evidence and give further information on the investigation/case
(I would like more arguments and am open to suggestions)
This would violate Amendment 6 of the Constitution, which states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial", emphasis on "public trial". Other cases that have violated the Constitution have not gone through, why should one similar to them be able to pass?