Naming a *suspect*: right or wrong?

Seanchai

If we believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, there has to be something wrong with police naming a mere suspect in a case, that is naming somebody who has not had a right to due process and his good name before being judged by a court of law. This naming happened over in Britain in the past week, in this case, and appears to have been largely if not entirely motivated by the desire of the police to be seen to be doing something in the case. In other words, media pressure resulted in an individual being named. The individual in question was not even charged with a crime. That, to my mind, sets a very dangerous precedent.

Even if a person is cleared of a crime afterwards, there will always be a "no smoke without fire" attitude to him/her. Their good name is gone. Other than some vicarious tabloid-type satisfaction for emotionally unstable sorts, what does society gain by the state naming an imprisoned person - that is, somebody who is not a threat - as a mere suspect in a case?

Do you think suspects should be named in Ireland before they are found guilty? Or is the current Irish situation of naming them only when they are charged acceptable to you?

Madam_X

I'm not knowledgeable on the subject but my gut reaction is: no, they should not be named unless found guilty. Can't stop Chinese whispers though.

HeyThereDeliah

I would say name them only when they are proven guilty once a person is named people consider them guilty on some way and it would be unfair.

aaronjumper

No, only people *charged* with a crime should be named

No way should people be named unless found guilty.
Even if found innocent it would follow them around forever.

"There's your man, accused of murder years ago, so he was"

Apologies for the language I'm just out of the Irish etiquette thread.

Risteard

I think it depends. If there's a a significant amount of evidence to suggest someone did it and they're on the run and the police can't find them, then naming them and publicising the case could help the police catch them.

However, if the police have already have the suspect in custody there should be no reason as to why they would release his name.

Ghandee

Seanchai wrote: »

If we believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, there has to be something wrong with police naming a mere suspect in a case, that is naming somebody who has not had a right to due process and his good name before being judged by a court of law. This naming happened over in Britain in the past week, in this case, and appears to have been largely if not entirely motivated by the desire of the police to be seen to be doing something in the case. In other words, media pressure resulted in an individual being named. The individual in question was not even charged with a crime. That, to my mind, sets a very dangerous precedent.

Even if a person is cleared of a crime afterwards, there will always be a "no smoke without fire" attitude to him/her. Their good name is gone. Other than some vicarious tabloid-type satisfaction for emotionally unstable sorts, what does society gain by the state naming an imprisoned person - that is, somebody who is not a threat - as a mere suspect in a case?

Do you think suspects should be named in Ireland before they are found guilty? Or is the current Irish situation of naming them only when they are charged acceptable to you?

The case in Wales I think, will later prove to be a lot more macabre and complicated than we know at the minute.

Its undeniable that naming Bridger in this case was something extraordinary, but I believe the Welsh police took extraordinary steps in an extraordinary case.

I don't want to join the witch hunt, speculators, idle gossipers, and (bad) news junkies currently out there, salivating over this case, but the police must have felt it necessary to release his name/pics etc, in an effort for the public to assist them inn whatever means possible.

The police have been more than short of details of what it is they actually have on the man, but i think its safe to assume they must have something pretty solid to warrant taking the steps they did with exposing him.

I say this as a person who, against all odds still hopes the little child turns up alive.
I know its f doubtful, but at this moment in time, unless the police really have some definite info on this little girls whereabouts/fate. Hope is no bad thing.

Johro

I was surprised alright when police named the suspect in a TV press conference, though the reporter referred to it as 'an unusual step', so I guess it's not normal practice, and it shouldn't be.

Snotzenfartz

If someone's not guilty then why would they be a suspect?

In your face, OP.

Johro

Snotzenfartz wrote: »

If someone's not guilty then why would they be a suspect?

In your face, OP.

The clue is in 'suspect'.

Ghandee

Snotzenfartz wrote: »

If someone's not guilty then why would they be a suspect?

In your face, OP.

Are you serious?

Someone needs to sit you down and explain the difference in being suspected of something, and convicted of something.

keith16

Madam_X wrote: »

I'm not knowledgeable on the subject but my gut reaction is: no, they should not be named unless found guilty. Can't stop Chinese whispers though.

Purple monkey dishwasher.

Madam_X

keith16 wrote: »

Purple monkey dishwasher.

Exactly!

The Big Red Button

There's something really dodgy about that case, and I won't be at all surprised if this guy had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance.

So, if he is innocent, isn't it possible that he was very happy to be named and have his photo published by the police - in the hope that someone might come forward to clear him, i.e. to say that they'd seen his elsewhere at the time she was abducted?

In general, I'd absolutely disagree with naming suspects ... however, in a high-profile case such as this, it's absolutely inevitable that the media would have ended up naming him and digging up all sorts of dirt on him. So, when it was going to happen anyways, perhaps the police decided to do so in such a way that they believed might benefit the investigation.

My name is URL

I voted for no unless charged, but it's far more complicated than that. There could be many reasons why the police named Bridger other than that of media pressure. Naming him as the only and overwhelmingly likely suspect could have sparked something in someones head who may have some info which could have been of help to the Police and search parties.

Gee Bag

Don't think a suspect should be named until charged unless there are exceptional circumstances. The cops in Wales got this one right IMO.

However, I do think we should get rid of this 'known to Gardai' bollocks. Thats like saying we think he's guilty of something.

It was bad form when they used it about that young lad who was knocked down by a drunk off duty guard (allegedley).

shopaholic01

I think he was named as police were appealing for information on his whereabouts during that day. If people didn't know who he was, they couldn't provide any information. We don't know what evidence the police have to suspect his involvement, but they do seem to think he was involved in some way.


It is a strange case, if he is found to be innocent he will probably have grounds to sue.

Precise Pangolin

Gee Bag wrote: »

However, I do think we should get rid of this 'known to Gardai' bollocks. Thats like saying we think he's guilty of something.

Usually peple are 'known to the Gardaí' because they are guilty of something - it is basically code for 'known criminal'.