Anonymity before trial?

[steve25805 126,021]

I will attempt here to initiate a serious discussion on a serious issue, namely whether the accused in certain types of crime should have anonymity until convicted. We all know that certain types of crime, like rape, child abuse, or child murder understandably evoke deep emotions and anger. If many of us had our way the perpetrators would be lucky if they got away with a quick death. Such is the loathing for anyone who commits such acts, that merely to be associated with such things in any way carries an enormous stigma, and "no smoke without fire" thinking is widespread. This would all be fine by me if all association with such crimes were based on some measure of guilt or culpability.

But herein lies the problem. We have all heard in the press glaring accounts of this or that person being accused of such things and having their name being dragged through the mud publicly, yet who end up being exonerated as wholly innocent, whilst their malicious false accusers continue to enjoy their anonymity. People's lives can be destroyed by such false allegations, long before any trial ever gets to exonerate them. And even when they are cleared, there will always be those who think "no smoke without fire", and who continue to stigmatize them. All of we blokes know deep down inside that we are only ever one malicious allegation away from having our lives potentially torn apart.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the law states that we should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Yet with the most heinous of crimes, those named are automatically assumed to be guilty long before any trial takes place, and villified as such. This is just wrong in my eyes.

Therefore, because the public cannot be trusted to honour the dictum "innocent until proven guilty", those accused should in my view have their identities protected until such time as they are actually convicted, just in case they are innocent. Since determing which crimes should be covered by such guaranteed anonymity would be fraught with grey areas, and since almost all crimes can potentially have some degree of stigma attached, I think it best just to grant anonymity to everyone accused of any crime at all until or unless he or she is convicted of it. If there is a very good reason why someone should be named, the police could apply for a special court order from a judge, but anonymity would be the default position.

What do others think?