Resolved: That anonymity should be granted to all people merely accused of a crime

1. Pro cleared up what he meant by "trial by public opinion." It had nothing to do with justice in the actual trial, which I think people usually worry about. If his claim was to improve courtroom justice, that would be potentially a more serious concern than concerns about the defendant's post-trial reputation. We agree trials are now fair. So Pro's case is that it is the suspects neighbors, hearing press reports about the case, who might potentially discriminate against a suspect even though he is found not guilty. Pro gives exactly one example of that happening and then claims it is logical to generalize from that one case. He supposes in general it is logical that citizens will not recognize that a person was found innocent, and will instead suppose that he had some guilt. I do not agree. It is much more likely that innocence will be recognized. I gave an example of the defendants in the Duke rape case being applauded for being found not guilty in the face of prosecutorial abuse. So we each have one example and a line of argument based upon the one example. Pro, however, has the burden of proof. He ought to show that in a substantial percentage of cases that a defendant found not guilty nonetheless suffered some substantial adverse consequences. I challenge Pro to produce a study or or other solid evidence that "not guilty" is generally taken as "guilty." I think it is rare. 2. The next question is whether the resolution would mitigate any problem that does occur. In the one example that Pro gave it was the local people, only in Hawley, that persisted in suspecting the man found innocent. I argued that those people will learn about he case whether it appears in the press or not. Pro grants there will be a whispering campaign. However, without press reports there will be no disclosure of facts to offset the rumors that are spread. Rumors may say that defendant got of on some technicality rather than based upon the evidence. Rumors may misrepresent the testimony given against him. People are better off with the facts. Pro claims that "a firm stance" by police will minimize the potential harm or rumors. Consider what the police must do to enforce the proposed new law. Suppose a Mr. Smith is arrested for shooting the sheriff, and the posse comes and drags him away. Neighbors see this happen and want to discuss it. His co-workers want to know what happened to Smith. For the "minimizing" to be enforced, there must be a fear that informants will tell the police that his neighbors spoke or e-mailed or twittered about what happened. It only works insofar as a police state mentality against free speech can be engendered. To maintain fear of the state, law enforcement officers must stop looking for real criminals and pursue citizens who may only be talking about what they saw. Many of the highly publicized scandals involve political leaders. Of late we've had the governors of South Carolina, Illinois, and New York; a candidate for President; and an assortment of Congressmen implicated in major scandals. All had criminal suspicions including misuse of taxpayer money for personal expenses. Under the resolution, none of it could be mentioned in the press. There is no possible wording by which the governor of a state could fail to be identified. The police would have a full time job arresting citizens who discuss their governor having a mistress in Argentina or having sold a Senate seat. Police states can pull this off, but it takes a huge network of informants. I argue that the effort is not worthwhile, and is gross violation of the peoples right to know what their politicians are doing independent of any possible criminal action. 3. Pro defined the resolution at the outset: "no information [may] be released into the public domain about the accused that would enable someone to identify them as the accused." That clearly prohibits circulating wanted posters, showing surveillance video of the crime, or revealing detailed descriptions of the suspect. Pro claims this might be remedied, "All the police need to do is be subtle, and call it 'eliminating people from our enquiries'. If sufficient people are included in this list, perhaps due to their coincidental appearance on the same CCTV footage, no damage is done." This only works if the obfuscation is so complete that no one can identify the suspect. The criteria is "would enable someone to identify them." If someone comes forward and identifies the suspect, that is ample proof that the law preventing him from being identified was broken. If Pro believes that a simple change in wording describing the suspect solves the problem, then everyone can use that wording to obviate the effect of the resolution. Anyone can say "The police are attempting to eliminate Fred Smith as a suspect in the shooting death ..." It won't take a minute to figure out what that really means, which is that Smith is a suspect. Even worse, Pro proposes "If sufficient people are included in this list, perhaps due to their coincidental appearance on the same CCTV footage, no damage is done." So, for example, police put together a composite sketch of a serial killer. The warning needs to along the lines of: "Police today assembled a composite sketch of the killer. It is one of the following eight sketches. Police ask that people be on the lookout for people resembling any of these eight people an report sightings immediately." People have enough trouble remembering what one sketch looks like, let alone eight. Moreover, if people could remember them all, it would generate huge numbers of false leads. Anyone who happens to look like one of the seven non-criminal faces would be erroneously put under suspicion, which is what the resolution is supposed to avoid. Pro says I "can't successfully argue that just because a policy (i.e. the status quo) leads to more criminals captured, this is therefore a good policy." The argument is that the good done by capturing very large numbers of the worst sorts of criminals outweighs the harm done by identifying them. The harm done by not catching them is they continue to commit serious felonies. So Pro claims that the harm done by having more people raped, robbed, and killed is outweighed by the potential damage to an innocent person's reputation, of which there are few examples. Pro agrees that investigative reporting will effectively be ended. He argues that the greater could lies in protecting the reputation of someone falsely accused by the investigative reporter, rather than exposing crooked politicians, mafia bosses, and consumer swindles. The reader will have to make that value judgment. My opinion is the greater good very clearly lies with investigating and exposing corruption. If a media organization makes a false accusation, they are open to being sued for defamation. That is a very strong, and completely adequate, deterrent to making false charges. 4. Prosecutorial abuse needs to identified when the person is placed under arrest, so it can be corrected before it is brought to trial. A post-trial appeal does not allow interested third parties to investigate the soundness of the State's case in the first place, nor to investigate on behalf of the defense. Also, if bad or corrupt judging results in a dismissal or "not guilty" verdict, the facts are forever concealed from the public. Pro trivializes the partial repeal of the First Amendment. It's not trivial because Americans but an extremely high value on free speech. It is hily valued right of a free society. It raises the bar for restriction. To limit free speech there needs to be an extraordinarily compelling reason. There is at most a very minor benefit, outweighed by severe disadvantages. Throughout, Pro claims his resolution will work in a transparent system. If enacted, the system will not be transparent. There will be secret trials. The resolution is negated.