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

Pro has selected an interesting topic. It may seem at the outset that "just a little" loss of free speech might be worthwhile, but careful consideration reveals that adopting the resolution would have terrible consequences. A serial killer is on the loose and police have managed to come up with a good likeness of the man based upon witness testimony and surveillance video. So should an alert be broadcast warning the public about the dangers posed by this individual, and to ask the public to call law enforcement if they see him? Does the public have a right to know? Pro says, "No." Pro worries that if the suspect is caught, tried, and found not guilty, then the suspects reputation will be harmed in the minds of errant citizens who do not understand that "not guilty" means "not guilty." Pro has the burden of proving that his alleged problem is so serious as to end the principle of free speech. He has not done so. Pro suggests that a long list of people might be publicized under the guise that police are seeking witnesses. The criteria for judging what is allowed is, as stated by Pro, "That no information be released into the public domain about the accused that would enable someone to identify them as the accused. This includes (but would not be limited to) the person's name, address, date of birth, picture or relation to the alleged victim." So as long as people cannot identify the serial killer on their streets, it is okay to publicize the case. In a surveillance video, the witnesses to the crime might be shown, but the man holding the gun could not be shown for fear he would be identified. The net effect is that persons sought for the commission of very serious crimes will be allowed to continue their criminal careers, causing serious direct harm to the public. The TV show about searches for wanted fugitives would become illegal. So why are we supposed to let serial killers roam unidentified? Pro cites a single case of a man found not guilty of a crime who was nonetheless subjected to discrimination from members of his community, citing his inability to visit certain pubs in his home town. Pro constructs the theoretical argument that due to erroneous "no smoke without fire" thinking, the problem might be widespread and hence well worth having serial killers roam free to solve it. There are some such dimwits in the general population. However, Pro provided no evidence whatsoever of a general problem. Pro claims that because he went on and on expounding his theory of human behavior, that makes it sound. It does not. My refutation is short. Most people understand that "not guilty" means "not guilty." The whole jury system depends critically upon that understanding, and Pro agrees the jury system works. Imagine, i general, all the information we would have to suppress in order to prevent dimwits from misinterpreting those facts. The purpose of the resolution is to suppress talk by citizens in the community of the person who is implicated. Pro agrees that cannot be entirely accomplished, but that vigorous police enforcement can suppress some of the talk. Enforcement requires a network of informants willing to report their neighbors who speak freely. The effectiveness of the resolution depends critically upon inducing police state fear. Pro apparently agrees, as he made no counter argument. Inducing police state style fear of free speech is incompatible with democracy, and I think Pro knows it. If the details of trial proceedings are publicized, the identities of the defendants will become obvious. Courtroom videos are banned and the address of a domestic crime scene cannot be disclosed. A defendant is blocked from seeking alibi witnesses. Prosecutorial misconduct cannot be nipped in the bud as it was in the Duke rape case; the trial must be end with an illegitimate conviction before attempting to correct the actions of the prosecutor. If an errant judge may let a criminal go on an irrelevant technicality or due to a bribe. Since the verdict is "not guilty," the records of those cases remain sealed forever. Pro chose not to respond to the problem of corrupt "not guilty" verdicts. The resolution will effectively put an end to investigative reporting. Investigative reporting is done by media who want to attract public interest by unraveling the details of case. Pro falsely claims that I said these are open-and-shut cases. I said no such thing. Particularly in cases of political corruption, it's often not clear if the politician crossed the line from behavior that in unseemly or unethical to illegality. Under the resolution, however, any suggestion that the person might be guilty of a crime must be suppressed. There can be no revelation that the governor, or whomever, is involved in suspicious circumstances. Investigative reporting is expensive, so if the investigating agency cannot report until the trial record is revealed to everyone, they have no advantage in initiating the investigation. The financial incentive of the media lies with the public using that particular media outlet to learn facts not available elsewhere. The resolution eliminates that advantage by suppressing publicity until all the facts have been exposed in a trial. It also opens the media to prosecution for the act of having exposed criminality. there will be no more investigative reporting. Throughout, Pro has mistaken the burden of proof. He summarizes, "Con claims that my burden is to show my principle to hold "in a substantial number of cases". This isn't true - it is to show that the current policy of non-anonymity both causes significant harms to those affected, and so should be prevented as far as possible, and that the current policy runs contrary to the commonly-accepted (and unchallenged) principle of innocence until proven guilty." Pro's burden is to show that the benefits of ending the principle of free speech outweighs the harm it causes. We could solve the problem of people being falsely accused by never accusing or prosecuting anyone. That's a 100% solution, with the downside being that criminals are unfettered. Pro must show that there is a net benefit to setting up a system of police informants so people fear talking, ending wanted posters and publicizing the criminals, keeping all trials substantially in secret with "not guilty" trials suppressed forever, and ending investigative reporting. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies to defendants on trial. Pro agrees that nothing in the resolution will change the present presumption of innocence in trials. My opponent agrees it will not lead to trials that are more fair. The way crimes are discovered is that someone has a suspicion, often well-founded upon surveillance videos or forensic evidence. Such evidence needs to be made public so that citizens can protect themselves and can assist the police. There should be a very strong presumption in favor of the right of free speech as a fundamental right. Pro's resolution undermines that right with unacceptable consequences. Voters should uphold freedom of speech and defeat the resolution.