Today, newspapers often do not name people accused in offence and do not show their faces. On the contrary, they post photos of victims. In such a way the audience’s attention is drawn to the victim but not to the criminal, and that is wrong as it makes the victim guilty in what had happened. The journalists write about what victim has done, what he or she was wearing or drinking, who he or she is married to and so on. Thus, much personal and unnecessary information is given to the audience. Victim becomes the main culprit because he or she did something inappropriate and provoked the criminal to commit the crime. According to Geneva Overholser, when crimes of raping occur, for instance, besides the cruelty of the crime itself, the audience displays its ruthlessness rather towards the victim not towards the criminal. Furthermore, the society has severely criticized right route, when it understood that truth must be disclosed, “when real people talk about real experiences. When names are named.” If to observe this issue in this direction, everything is just clear: the newspapers should rather post the photos of the accused and his or her personal information to help people avoid being victims in such crimes. It sounds good if there were no contradictions. Sometimes people are wrongly accused of posting their photos, as publishing their personal information and contacts can cost them their lives because the audience perceives the information quickly and not think over whether the accused is really guilty. Obviously, information about the accused must not be disclosed until his or her blame is proved. This issue is rather contradictory because sometimes the divulgence of the information about the accused can be very dangerous for him or her. And I describe it in my perfect essay

People who committed the crime must be punished, and society must know the criminal, who might be somebody’s relative, or a partner, or just the man next door. Moreover, one has the right to know who lives near them and what to expect from the people who live nearby. Rarely people are wrongly accused, it happens, of course, but not very often. However, such people sometimes are really dangerous persons. After disclosing names of the accused, the latter can, according to Sylvia Stead, have the following problems: employment opportunity, bad fame, and problems with building personal relations. Undoubtedly, names must be revealed to give people an opportunity to participate in the process and follow it. The issue of the accused teenagers is completely different, because they still are children and mainly their mistakes are not life threatening or harmful to the other people. If young boy smoked marijuana, his name must not be disclosed if he is under-age. “But as the article suggests, judgment is required here. Is it a minor offense, such as smashing a window during a university homecoming? Or is it murder? How close to an adult is the accused?”. If a person did not commit something threatening to life, health, and honor of the others, his or her name should not be revealed because the actions do not harm anyone.

However, if one committed something outrageous like theft, beating, raping or murdering, the newspapers should obviously name who is the culprit. Conforming to Owen Bowcott’s article “Press intrusion: Don’t name suspects in the media until charged, urges MP” which is about Robert Buckland’s demand about creating restrictions on disclosing names of the accused. He is sure that the practice of revealing names of the people under suspense must be forbidden until they are officially proclaimed guilty and charged because “that [accusation] is going to be on Google for the rest of his life and he will never be able to get away from it.” So, people should know the names of the criminals only after they are adjudjed, because if they are really innocent they will not have an opportunity to cleanse their good names.

The issue of whether the accused must be named or whether their names must be kept in secret is a rather complicated one. The problem is that the names of victims are always known and everybody who wants to ridicule him or her can easily do this, while the names of the criminals are unknown in spite of the fact they are the ones who broke the law. In fact, when people are wrongly accused and just do not deserve bad fame. Furthermore, someone did something illegal when he or she was a teenager and his actions do not have bad consequences. Thus, various crimes are harmful in different ways. On the whole, the name of a criminal must be kept in secret until he or she is charged because rumors and unreliable information travel fast. Therefore, it becomes very hard to restore one’s good name if he or she is really guiltless. When the trial proves that the accused is the criminal indeed, then the media is allowed to disclose the name of the culprit. One more important amendment is that the victim’s name must be anonymous until the criminal’s name is unveiled to the society. Such a measure can save the victim from discrimination and accuses from the suspect’s friends and family members. This step is necessary in providing security for both sides — the blamed and the casualty. Anonymity in cases when the suspect is not under charge is vital. Thus, such measures have to be taken to provide the most comfortable state of mind of the victim, the accused, and their relatives.

The issue whether the name of the accused must be disclosed or not is very contradictory. First, the accused persons can be innocent, so the posting of his or her name in the media can ruin his or her life. They obviously would have some problems with employment later, as people would be afraid of them, and their relatives would stop communicating with them because their reputation is spoilt. Besides, it is unfair that the victim’s name is usually named and everyone including relatives and friends of the accused can harm the victim, especially if it is the case of raping. Also people have the right to know who they are living with as the criminal can appear to be their neighbor, or a friend, or a classmate, etc. Therefore, people’s right to know if they are safe or in danger is broken. So, there is a way out. As Robert Buckland suggests, the names of the suspects should not be named unless the latter are charged because accused by mistake once, they will never remove their honor name and their careers, personal relations, and their lives will be ruined. He says: “that [accusation] is going to be on Google for the rest of his life and he will never be able to get away from it.” However, people under age must have an opportunity to stay anonymous if the crime they committed is not life threatening or does not cause danger to the others. And the last point is that victim’s name must also be kept in secret until the name of the accused is disclosed. Consequently, this will save the victim from the assaults from the side of the suspect relatives, friends, from people who support him or her, from rumors and inability to leave home staying untouched.