Stuffing

name release

I read this article in the Toronto Star relating the public "outing" of those involved in child pornography charges (guilty or not) by the media and police to suicide risk.

I can see both sides of this.
I grew up in an anti-censorship household. My father was an advocate for freedom in books and movies- against the banning that sometimes went on. An advocate for free choice, you could say. Though this did not mean he approved of MY choices. Specifically the one that I made to become a Christian he had a hard time with.

Also, as a Christian I believe that truth should be free- that everything is going to be seen in the end, why not see it now? I'm not much for hiding things in this life.

On that basis, I would argue for the publication of all truth.

Others would argue that the names should be published so that the community can be protected. I am not so sure that the publication increases the safety of the community, however, it certainly doesn't decrease the safety so there is a bit of an argument there.

However, the point that the article makes is:
For the most part, child pornography offenders are white, male and educated, and have had no previous contact with the criminal justice system. They are less likely than other sex offenders to be psychopathic and appear to be at a higher risk for suicide, according to the 2009 report co-written by Lurigio.

The men, he says, are also in a “position of prominence or trust, whose activities utterly belie their public reputation, and are invested in their public reputation, and who have spent time cultivating it, and feel a great deal of shame and hopelessness about their future.

What this seems to imply is that the type of person that allegedly engages in this type of behaviour is not the typical criminal and so needs an element of protection.

Is there a way to protect both the community and the accused?

posted by Aphra @ 1/02/2011 07:34:00 PM