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

OK. Thanks, RoyLatham, for accepting this debate. Without further ado, then, I present my substantive case: === THE IMPORTANCE OF "Innocence until proven guilty" === There is very good reason that every country with a fair legal system enshrines an idea of "innocence until proven guilty" in its legal codes: given that the criminal justice system serves to deny people their freedom and liberty, it is very important that anyone deemed to be a "criminal" has gone through rigorous procedures to ensure that they actually did commit the crime in question. Ensuring that frivolous accusations don't lead to lifelong damage/stigma on innocent people is the very cornerstone of this rigorous legal procedure. === HOW A LACK OF ANONYMITY MAKES SUCH A TRIAL BY PUBLIC OPINION MORE LIKELY === This rigour is undermined every time that we publicly identify anyone merely accused of a crime. For whilst the legal system, and the judges/lawyers that largely comprise the legal system, accept and respect the concept of innocence until proven guilty, this cannot be expected to translate into the attitude of the general public. All too often there is the concept that "there is no smoke without fire" - that something must have happened, otherwise the alleged victim wouldn't have reported anything. There is also often a prevailing sympathy with the alleged victim, especially when children or sexual crimes are involved, which often bias the public against the alleged perpetrator and make them feel that the accuser must be in the right. Whilst an entirely understandable urge, it becomes harmful when applied against people who should be presumed innocent, as suddenly they are presumed guilty by the community as a whole. Identifying the suspect of a crime is, crucially, what makes this flurry of accusations stick. Anyone can innocently visit a police station to legitimately help the police with their investigation, or take time off work due to the way in which an allegation personally affects them - for instance if they knew, and were close to, the accuser. It is often only when someone is announced as being a suspect that suspicions surrounding someone will be raised, and even if this is not the case, the publication of their being put on trial and/or being arrested will only serve to legitimise any suspicions that were already raised. It becomes a matter of public record that, out of all the people who may have committed the crime, the accused is the one most suspected by police (and, perhaps more importantly, by the victim) to have done so. This only lends weight to the idea that there is no smoke without fire: "for after all," it may be reasoned, "why else would they have been arrested, had they not done something wrong, of which I should be suspicious?" Not only does this suspicion clearly cause harm when endured by innocent people - most intuitively with such allegations as rape, paedophilia and domestic abuse ("wife-beating") - but it is provably false: to take accusations of rape or sexual assault as an example, not only are there instances of maliciously false allegations, but there is always the distinct possibility that the accuser is mistaken about what happened, how far the accused actually went and how clear his/her withdrawal of consent actually was. Allegations given by children are also especially open to potential misunderstandings and abuse by external agencies - the McMartin Preschool Trial, for example, made clear how the testimony of children can be susceptible to any pre-existing belief, either from their parents or from interrogators themselves, about what the "correct testimony" should be. [1] This concept of "no smoke without fire" results in the accused often being ostracised from their community, being suspended and/or fired from their job, and generally having a cloud of suspicion remain over their heads often for the rest of their lives...especially if, as happens in the UK, an unfounded allegation stays on their criminal record permanently, resulting in it re-emerging and causing problems when the person tries to get employment at a later date. [2] None of this should be taken to undermine the very serious crimes often involved in such cases, nor to imply that malicious and/or false allegations are common: it only serves to highlights the fact that "no smoke without fire" is very clearly not a principle which can be trusted in such allegations. Given this knowledge, and given the destruction of lives that can result, the Government should act to stop such ramifications from taking place. === ACCEPTING THAT THIS PROPOSITION DOES NOT SOLVE EVERYTHING === It may be mentioned by RoyLatham that private gossiping will still take place. Whilst accepting this as sadly inevitable, it does not significantly destroy my case. For even if 'whisper campaigns' take place, that is something that happens anyway and can never, unfortunately, stop. I am not suggesting that my proposition is a panacea that will solve all the problems surrounding this issue, merely that it will significantly help. Furthermore, the Government should not be complicit in such campaigns and presumptions of guilt, as they are at the moment by allowing the identities of the merely accused to be made public. If the Government sees something that is wrong in society - as I have argued very clearly that lack of anonymity here does - then it surely has a duty to try and solve that problem in whatever way possible, for what other reason have we elected that Government to represent us? The fact that every problem will not be solved is not a reason to try and lower the occurrence and possible widespread nature of these problems: despite laws against murder, for instance, there are still plenty of murderers, yet this is clearly no good argument for legalising murder. It is merely an argument for trying better to enforce the law, a conclusion which applies itself very clearly to the present case. === CONCLUSION === I may yet in future rounds have reason to introduce more substantive matter. But so far, I have shown a very clear case. A just legal system is based on an idea of innocence until proven guilty, and publishing identifiable details of the merely accused (and thus to be presumed innocent) leads to a false presumption and belief among many people that they are in fact guilty. Such presumptions clearly harm innocent people, and even if it is unfortunately impossible to eradicate such attitudes, the Government should not complicit in such actions taking place. For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote Pro. Sources [1] http://www.law.umkc.edu... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...