6 ms·

IRL I knew someone who was charged with child sexual abuse. He went to prison awaiting trial, but the prosecution dropped the charges before it got there. He

• Yeul 2y ago
  In the Netherlands media never names suspects. But it's more of a cultural thing people just mind their own business.
  • tiku 2y ago
    To clarify, we name them partially. The first name and then the first letter of the lastname. So John Doe would be John D.
  • hilux 2y ago
    "Minding their own business" means that thousands of children are abused by Catholic priests and no one does anything to stop it. Of course, this is not limited to the Netherlands, but it's the point of the discussion: how to prevent more abuse, more of whatever crime.
• pyrophane 2y ago
  I know that there is the saying that goes something like “a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich,” but at least there is an acknowledgment there that being publically accused of a crime can come with a pretty high cost to the accused, and that is worth some process. I served in a grand jury in NY and it was overall a pretty positive experience. Yes, the standard is lower and at times it can feel like a rubber stamp, but we did refuse to indict in two cases where we decided the DA failed to get us to “more likely than not.”
• Ferret7446 2y ago
  I think libel laws should be updated, so entities are compelled to correct the record when requested. News media have gotten away with publishing "well we thought it was true at the time" (or "we didn't say it, we said someone else said it") for too long.
  • cogman10 2y ago
    Publishing the name of a suspect should generally not be tolerated. Particularly in the case of mass shootings or general terrorism. Unless the person is a politician or an active danger, no good comes from publishing their name. In the case they are guilty, you are giving notoriety which encourages copycats. In the case they are innocent, you've seriously harmed the reputation of an innocent person. The only reason I'd make a carve out for politicians is because well connected politicians have a way of wiggling out of responsibility and electing someone that may spend the next two years behind bars is generally worse for the public they'd represent.
    • danpalmer 2y ago
      > Unless the person is a politician or an active danger, no good comes from publishing their name What do you think of the case in my comment, tldr: suspected CSAM offences by a scout group leader. I think it was right that the scout group were notified so he could be suspended... but that is only a very small step from publishing the name, unless you put recipients under NDA and/or criminalise further publicity. I'm honestly fairly conflicted overall. Obviously the malicious publication we see in general is bad, but I'm not sure where the line is.
      • cogman10 2y ago
        He was already being held in prison so I see no reason to further publish until a trial or settlement hit. But let's assume he's charged and released on bail or otherwise. In that case, I think it's reasonable for the cops to notify the organizations he's involved with of the pending trial and for a judge to put a restraining order on him. I didn't think anything further needs to happen until he's found guilty or settles with a guilty plea. My kid's school recently had a related event happen. A guy with a CSAM conviction was released from prison so the cops went around to all the schools to let them know about the dude. (We are friendly with the school secretary and noticed an unusual amount of cops around the school). Edit: oops, looks like I mixed up your case with the OPs. But I think what I said still applies and is ultimately what happened in your case. My main issue is with a public permanent record in the form of a newspaper or news broadcast and not with responsible disclosure by cops.
• danpalmer 2y ago
  I knew someone charged with having large amounts of CSAM. He was also named in local media before conviction, although you really had to go looking for it to find it. More importantly perhaps, he was a scout leader and his scout group were informed, I believe by the police, as early as the investigation began - i.e. before being charged, let alone convicted. Given the topic of the investigation, as much as I think people not yet convicted should be treated as innocent, I also think the public has a right to protections in cases where there is a plausible threat. In this case regardless of his guilt, there was a plausible threat to children under his care. The problem is that if you tell a scout group you're telling the parents, and it only takes one to make a stink about it for it to spread. Sadly, although perhaps expectedly, the nuance of plausible threat vs conviction is often lost in times like this.
  • in-pursuit 2y ago
    Were they convicted? It seems irresponsible to let someone strongly suspected of harming children to continue to have close contact with children. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a criminal justice concept. It actually doesn’t apply to civil matters.
    • danpalmer 2y ago
      I don't think the conviction matters to the point. They were convicted, but my point is that a suspicion that causes an investigation should probably warrant telling those who could be at risk, even if the investigation ends up going nowhere. Not sure what you mean about the civil matter, CSAM offences are criminal, so I'd expect "innocent until proven guilty" to apply in this case. If you mean that for other civil matters there's no need to notify those at risk, I would agree, I doubt anything civil meets the bar of risk.
      • in-pursuit 2y ago
        I think I misunderstood your point. It sounded like you were arguing against telling the scout group prior to the conviction, because they were innocent until proven guilty. But from your follow up, it sounds like you agree with telling the scout group prior to his conviction. In that case, I agree with you.
• hulitu 2y ago
  > Ideally those news paper articles should be updated They cannot do this, their reputation is at stake. I've seen very few newspapers who recognised they made a failure.
  • xboxnolifes 2y ago
    Your right, their reputation is at stake. So, they should recognize their failures.
• dessimus 2y ago
  Just because charges were dropped doesn't mean they were innocent. It could mean there wasn't enough reliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or the evidence was tainted in a way that the prosecution did not believe they would get a conviction in a court of law.
  • eschulz 2y ago
    You're innocent until proven guilty by a court of law
    • dessimus 2y ago
      In the eyes of the law, yes. But that does not mean that a child wasn't damaged due to the abuse by a person the law could not convict. Or are you of the opinion that that 100% of sexual abusers have been caught, tried, convicted, and have or are currently serving time? Edit: typo
  • qingcharles 2y ago
    This is true, for sure, but there is also the flip side where evidence is wrong, mistaken, planted, framed etc, which comes out during the trial. Where do you balance it?
  • bb88 2y ago
    Here's a scenario. You get into an argument. The other guy is a cop it turns out. He arrests you for a trumped up charge and makes sure to tell the media. Child sexual abuse is the charge. Now what?
    • dessimus 2y ago
      Sue the police department for false arrest odds are good it would make the media.