Should the government prevent the naming of the accused until proven guilty?

[peteyt]

With Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster in the popular ITV soap Coronation Street just been proven innocent of rape charges made against him it begs an ongoing question - should the government prevent the naming of the accused until they are proven guilty?

Currently by law, papers are not allowed to name the person making the charges apparently even if they are proven to be falsified. However like many, I believe this is incredibly unfair for the actual accused who can be legally named straight away even before an actual trial.

The problem with this is anything like this can be very damaging. Michael Le Vell for example may be 100 percent innocent but there will most definitely be some people who will still believe the wrong verdict was made, the point is even if proven innocent, these accusations can easily stick and cause damage. This can be particularly hard for those in the public's eye, who need a strong and friendly image.

What do people think? Do you think the system needs to change or do you find it works well already?

[lawrawrrr]

If they weren't named OFFICIALLY people would still find out. Naming of the accused actually lets people step forwards - if it was just a member of the community then hearing on the news that this person is going to trial might help produce more witnesses or victims.

[peteyt]

If they weren't named OFFICIALLY people would still find out. Naming of the accused actually lets people step forwards - if it was just a member of the community then hearing on the news that this person is going to trial might help produce more witnesses or victims.

For normal people yes it could help but famous people are seen daily at times and don't need bad press. Obviously there's always a chance of leaks yeah, but I do think they should still keep it private and at least attempt to prevent leaks or at least name the apparent victim if its discovered they where lying.

[lawrawrrr]

For normal people yes it could help but famous people are seen daily at times and don't need bad press. Obviously there's always a chance of leaks yeah, but I do think they should still keep it private and at least attempt to prevent leaks or at least name the apparent victim if its discovered they where lying.

You can't really change laws depending on an individuals 'fame' though. It can be just as harmful to a regular person as a famous person to be defamed as Michael La Vell (sp) has.

Naming a victim - even if they are assumed to be lying - is the worst idea ever. Do you know why witness protection was put in place? Why they take such care to look after witnesses and victims? Can you imagine the abuse she would receive if she were to be named?

[Kardan]

You can't really change laws depending on an individuals 'fame' though. It can be just as harmful to a regular person as a famous person to be defamed as Michael La Vell (sp) has.

Naming a victim - even if they are assumed to be lying - is the worst idea ever. Do you know why witness protection was put in place? Why they take such care to look after witnesses and victims? Can you imagine the abuse she would receive if she were to be named?

Likewise, I'm sure the abuse that Michael got, and will get, is also a terrible thing.

[lawrawrrr]

Likewise, I'm sure the abuse that Michael got, and will get, is also a terrible thing.

But he can go back to those people and say, well I was proved innocent - so that abuse he can legally rise above.

[Kardan]

But he can go back to those people and say, well I was proved innocent - so that abuse he can legally rise above.

'Legally' rising above any abuse won't make the abuse any better. Try telling that to George Zimmerman

[lawrawrrr]

'Legally' rising above any abuse won't make the abuse any better. Try telling that to George Zimmerman

Yeah but if we take the two people involved:

Le Vell: accused of a horrible crime but is INNOCENT of that

Victim: accused a man of a horrible crime and is branded a LIAR by the judge


Le Vell knows he did nothing wrong, whereas the judge has decided that the girl HAS done something wrong. Le Vell will get abuse, be called a child molester, etc etc, but at the end of the day, he's in the right - whereas the girl is in the wrong, so if abuse was directed at her, it would be more 'real', for want of a better word.

[FlyingJesus]

But he can go back to those people and say, well I was proved innocent - so that abuse he can legally rise above.

Accused of a crime so bad that even in the worst prisons the inmates attack and kill perpetrators because they're viewed as evil: whatever, rise above it!
Lied about a serious issue and put someone else's entire life and livelihood in jeopardy: deserves anonymity and no charge, duhhhhh

And to seriously suggest that "knowing he's right" negates all of that is ridiculous

[lawrawrrr]

Accused of a crime so bad that even in the worst prisons the inmates attack and kill perpetrators because they're viewed as evil: whatever, rise above it!
Lied about a serious issue and put someone else's entire life and livelihood in jeopardy: deserves anonymity and no charge, duhhhhh

er i didn't say that... i believe that the girl who lied should be punished for what she did and she will almost definitely be sued for defamation against le vell and charged with perverting the court of justice

but yes victims and witnesses deserve anonymity/protection for their own sakes


and le vell has a clear name in the eyes of the law, he has no reason to care what he was accused of because he cannot be discriminated because of it because he is innocent (and if he is discriminated then he can sue!!) - who even brought up prisoners and inmates???