Innocent until proven guilty

‘Ben Sullivan’ courtesy of the mirror.co.uk

Given the recently publicized questioning of Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan for rape and attempted rape by police, it seems an opportune moment to consider that sometimes freedom of speech and of the press must be restricted. 

Briefly, to clarify some points as this is a sensitive issue, at the time of writing, Mr. Sullivan has been released on bail without charge. I do not condone rape, nor do I defend his actions should he be later found guilty; I merely use him as a case study to highlight the problem at hand.

In this country, rape victims are provided press anonymity. This is not only pragmatic as it encourages victims to come forward, but inhibits “shaming”.  However one must consider the reverse of this. Rape or murder, especially of a child, are perhaps the most heinous crimes one can commit and are consequently highly emotive issues. Those accused face public hostility, ostracism and even death threats. However in this country being accused of such a crime does not warrant such considerations of anonymity. Instead, their names and faces are printed for the whole world to see and condemn. I contend that this is not only a violation of our most important legal principles, but also an unnecessary hardship for the accused and their relatives.

Human error remains one issue with this policy. I recall the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings in December 2012, when media outlets incorrectly named Ryan Lanza as the shooter; it was in fact his brother Adam. I still instinctively remember Ryan, and not Adam, as the murderer. Tuning in to find that you have been branded a child murderer on national television, and to know that some people such as myself will always connect your name with the crime, cannot be pleasant.

But media inaccuracy is not the only reason for defendant anonymity. We must remember the most basic legal principle which underpins our society: Innocent until proven guilty. It is shockingly unfair that innocent people – and they are innocent until a jury of their peers finds them guilty regardless of what newspapers may say about them – should face the stress of public naming. Arrest, questioning and possibly a trial are traumatic enough. And in some instances, naming causes wider social tensions. The recent arrest of Gerry Adams, who was released without charge, threatened to destabilize the fragile peace in Northern Ireland and reignite the old sectarian divides. Additionally naming an individual and allowing newspapers to run features about them – never placing the accused in a positive light – threatens to undermine the notion of a fair trial. Jurors must be impartial in their judgment and the media’s ability to spin an individual into a monster risks prejudicing the court against the defendant. In a nation which prides itself on the rights it gives its citizens, how is depriving them of the most fundamental legal principal – innocent until proven guilty – just? Moreover, it is unfair to the families of the accused. They too will suffer recriminations, as well as the irritating media spotlight, for their relative’s presumed, but not yet actual, guilt.

It is shockingly unfair that innocent people – and they are innocent until a jury of their peers finds them guilty regardless of what newspapers may say about them – should face the stress of public naming.

But the short term effects are arguably marginal compared to the longer term. In an age where newspaper articles are available online, and search engines precise enough that a simple search on Google will immediately highlight these events, individuals are facing a lifetime in the shadow of a crime they may not have committed. Not being charged or even an acquittal never really wipes the slate clean, especially if the culprit is never caught. The odor of suspicion remains. Those accused will never shrug off the past. Whether it’s a declined job application or damaged relationships, it will follow them for the rest of their lives. Take for instance, the case of Christopher Jefferies, who was accused and later proved innocent for the murder of Joanna Yeates. With headlines by The Sun such as “The Strange Mr. Jefferies”, probing and twisting his life into a negative light to portray him as a sick criminal, Jefferies suffered national abuse. Yet still today, these articles remain prominent amongst searches for her murder. Naming the accused leaves a shadow they will likely never fully shake off, punishing them for their innocence.

It is not responsible reporting. It is not ethical journalism. It is sensationalism. I respect that on many occasions, particularly when it comes to crimes in public office, newspapers have performed a key role in unmasking these criminals. And a free press is a foundation stone for a free society, and people must have the right to voice their opinions. But intrusion has a price, and people’s lives matter more than the profits of a newspaper. By all means report the crime, make people aware of the dangers out there. But leave the individuals for the legal system to decide their guilt. Should they be found guilty, then they have forgone their right to press anonymity along with their freedom. But if innocent then they can return to their lives and try to carry on without a shadow following their every move.

[divider]

Header Photo: flickr/kacey