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

Thanks to Pro for an engaging topic. Suppose the resolution were, "The government should be allowed to arrest and try citizens in secrecy." Pro's resolution is not that government merely be allowed to do that, but they be required to do that. Moreover, the public cannot be warned of dangerous criminal suspects on the loose and the police cannot ask the public for aid in catching a suspect for arrest if the information given in any way allows the suspect to be identified. No composite sketches or security camera photos are allowed. Freedom of speech is restricted, which in America would require an amendment to the Constitution. Is all this worth the claimed benefits? First, let's examine those claims. 1. Presumption of Innocence Pro's argument depends upon the notion that defendant is tried by "the public." That's not true, the defendant is tried by a jury. The court's task is solely to find twelve impartial jurors. Regardless of the whether the defendant is identified in the press, any prospective juror may know the defendant, a victim, a witness, or may have some important prejudice that would lead t an unfair decision by the juror. There are legal safeguards to prevent that: a. Each juror is asked if they have read or otherwise anything of the case and if they have have formed an opinion about the guilt of the defendant. The jury is usually required to fill out a questionnaire asking questions about their prior beliefs that might prejudice their opinion. The defense attorney gets to examine each juror to try to uncover any prior prejudice. There are very few cases where jurors cannot be found who have head little or nothing about a particular case. The judge may excuse any number of jurors who are found to have relevant prior prejudicial opinions. b. Cases that are highly publicized may lead to difficulty in finding impartial jurors. In those cases the defense may request, and the judge can grant, a change of venue. The case will then be moved to a location where an impartial jury can be found. c. Pro contends that the mere accusation of a suspect will prejudice a jury. If true, that is not remedied by the resolution. The defendant is put in front of the jury and named as the one charged. The defendant is not merely named, he is there in the courtroom with the attorneys, judge, and jury arrayed around him. This is countered by the judge's instructions that there is a presumption of innocence and by admonitions that the testimony of police must not be taken as fact. Jurors generally take their jobs seriously and behave accordingly. d. The guarantee of anonymity does not prevent jurors from forming prior opinions about guilt or innocence. Suppose the press reports, "Mr. X was arrested today and charged with shooting the Sheriff at high noon on the streets of Tombstone in front of a dozen witnesses. Mr. X was later apprehended while high-tailing it to the Border." The real name of "Mr. X" is not revealed in press accounts, but the jury in the courtroom will quickly learn that the defendant is the notorious Mr. X who was described in accounts as perpetrating the evil deed. His name was not the important part of any supposed prejudicial accounting. In fact, it's doubtful that unless the defendant is O.J. Simpson or the like, that jurors would even remember the name given in the accounts. 2. Anonymity The question is whether the resolution would substantially diminish prejudice against a defendant found not guilty. Pro grants, "For even if 'whisper campaigns' take place, that is something that happens anyway and can never, unfortunately, stop." True. Consequently, the community around the accused will still form whatever prejudices they would have formed. He will go missing from work or school, and word would soon spread as to the reason. The only escape for the accused person is to relocate to some place where he is not known. There are very few criminal cases where news of a case goes beyond the local area. If news does reach another area, the fact that the defendant was found not guilty is likely to be accepted; that's particularly true if the person was falsely accused. In the U.S., there was a famous case of a Duke University lacrosse team being falsely accused of gang rape. http://en.wikipedia.org... There is no evidence that the publicity left harm on the falsely accused players. what everyone remembers is that they were *falsely* accused. In fact, it was quite opposite, as several became honored for their behavior in the face of false accusations. The Public's Right to Know Whatever embarrassment the accused might suffer is offset by the public's right to know. 3. The public ought to both be warned of and able to assist the police in tracking down suspects. Consider: "News report: Police now have a composite sketch of the suspect serial killer based upon eyewitness descriptions and security camera video. Police believe it is an accurate likeness of the suspect. The picture cannot be released to the public, however, because if they did so the suspect would likely be identified. Under a recent debate resolution adopted into law, nothing that could lead to the identification of a person not actually convicted can be revealed." There is a long-running TV show called "America's Most Wanted." http://www.amw.com... The show publicizes criminal suspects and request public assistance in locating them. They only deal with major crimes. They claim to have aided in the arrest of 1109 fugitives. Every one of the arrests is due to release of information that enables the suspect to be identified, usually a photograph of the person sought. Under the resolution "no information [can] be released into the public domain about the accused that would enable someone to identify them as the accused." Therefore, under the resolution, over a thousand serious felons would not have been caught. 4. a. The right to know about trial proceedings is critical to curbing prosecutorial abuse or neglect. In the Duke rape case, the prosecutor was ultimately found guilty of misconduct. That might have been covered up if everything was kept secret up to the verdict. If the defendants were found not guilty, they could not have revealed the records of the case to the public. (Note that the resolution makes no exception for the defendant revealing information to the public.) b. More generally, the public is rightly concerned with whether individuals are being singled out for prosecution because of some affiliation that ought to be irrelevant to whether or not the person is charged and at what level the person is charged. There is concern with whether celebrities are let off easy, or, sometimes, treated more harshly to make an example of them. There is concern with whether heavily-lawyered wealthy people manage to escape on technicalities. c. An errant judge may decide to let off a defendant for some insubstantial technicality, or for no identifiable rational reason. Perhaps the Mob got to him with a bribe. Since defendant is found "not guilty" the circumstances are forever concealed from the public. 5. Suppose the press investigates Governor Smith and finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The governor is "merely accused." The newspaper cannot publish the findings because the presumption of the resolution is that anything that might taint public opinion must be suppressed. So the paper can give the finding to the police, but they cannot report it. But what pays for investigative journalism? The prospect of selling papers, or in cashing on with increased television viewership. The resolution will effectively end investigative reporting. For these many reasons, the resolution is negated.