Should Arrested People Remain Unnamed Until Convicted?

[Si Hunt]

Coronation Street star Michael Le Vell said he was "delighted" to have been "completely exonerated" after he was cleared of child sex allegations following a police investigation.

The star - who has played mechanic Kevin Webster for nearly 30 years - said he was now planning to carry on working and put the incident behind him.

Le Vell, 46, was arrested and interviewed after allegations were made against him of a sexual assault, which was alleged to have taken place a number of years ago. But Greater Manchester Police announced last week that the case would not be pursued.

Speaking for the first time about the case, Le Vell paid tribute to the police for their "thorough" investigation. And he thanked the public and his colleagues for their support.

In a statement he said: "Following the conclusion of the police enquiry into allegations that have been widely publicised in the national press, I would like to acknowledge and give thanks to the Greater Manchester Police for the fair, thorough and independent investigation that they have conducted.

"I have maintained my innocence throughout and I am delighted to be completely exonerated by the decision that there will be no further action taken in this matter."

You can see his point. Assuming, as we must, that he's innocent (and the same thing happened to Craig Charles a few years ago, you'd hope he'd offered moral support) why should peoples names be dragged through the mud just because someone has made an accusation?

Si.

[SiHart]

I think they should. As part of the old innocent until proven gulity ruling we have in this country, it ought to be upheld.

[Jason Thompson]

I definitely think they should remain anonymous. Look what happened to that nurse who was arrested on suspicion of poisoning patients at a hospital. Her name and face were plastered all over the papers, and then she was acquitted. But of course by then it was too late because of the abuse she had already suffered.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and I think there is a very strong case for maintaining anonymity until convictions are made.

[Dirk Gently]

I'm with Si & Jason. Anonymous/innocent until proven guilty.
I don't recall Gary Glitter being in the news until he was convicted. Although that may be because I just don't remember & he may well have been in the news before. Does anyone remember?

[Larry]

I certainly think people accussed of rape or other sex crimes should remain anonymous.there have been far to many cases of inocent men having their life ruined because some woman has cried rape when nothing happened.

[Awesome Wells]

Totally agree with Si, Jason and Tim in principle - but I think it would be difficult to enforce in the twenty first century. Even if you gag the press, it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out via the Internet. All it takes is one person involved on a personal level - friends, family, prison guards, police - to tweet about it and the news is out there.

[Paul Clement]

You also have to wonder what the reaction would be if someone was released on bail pending trial and committed another crime in the interim. Accusations would fly around that if people had been informed they could have protected themselves better.

[Jason Thompson]

All it takes is one person involved on a personal level - friends, family, prison guards, police - to tweet about it and the news is out there.

There's a difference between a leak online via websites that you have to actively go and visit to get information from and having someone's face plastered across all the papers with variations of the accusation printed in big letters so that you learn their identity and alleged crime simply by standing in the queue at Smith's waiting to pay for your DWM special, though.

People will talk and rumours/information will spread, but that's no reason to give the media free reign to saturate the country with said rumours and information overnight.

[Jason Thompson]

You also have to wonder what the reaction would be if someone was released on bail pending trial and committed another crime in the interim. Accusations would fly around that if people had been informed they could have protected themselves better.

Of course, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

The fundamental principle on which the legal system is based is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately people too often assume guilt, and even when no guilty verdict is returned refuse to accept it. The result is that all too often some innocent has his life turned upside down because the whole country thinks he committed some crime and half the country refuses to accept the innocent verdict (which is never given as much prominence in the media as the fact that he was arrested on suspicion of the crime in the first place).