• @UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 month ago

    I will never understand the need to name and shame suspects in a criminal case before they have been found guilty. Something like this is entirely unthinkable in most European countries, except in super high profile cases where the suspect is well known and trying to keep their identity hidden is entirely hopeless, or the interest of the public is too great.

    What if a suspect is found innocent? They will forever have that stigma attached to themselves anyway, complete with photo and all. It implies an infalability of the executive and judicative systems that is a total illusion: if charged, they will be guilty, so here is their photo and home address.

    • @PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      We decided that transparency is extremely important. People obviously shouldn’t look at it as proof of guilt, but humans are fucky.

  • @Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 month ago

    You never see the 25 public relations staff talking about this shit, just when they save ducks or whatever.

  • @satanmat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 month ago

    Gdism I hate the passive voice here

    How about::

    Officer arrested for r*ping 13 month old child

    I’m surprised it’s not MORE passive.

    Child suffered injuries in possible officer involved….

    Fsck this POS

      • @satanmat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 month ago

        Yes.

        Thank you; you are correct

        I’m annoyed that news editors use the passive voice when ever there is anything involving an officer.

        It is rarely “ suspect shot by police “ And usually “ officer involved shooting “

        And to be certain. I do want him to have a truly fair trial.