Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Australian wildfire suspect named as toll hits 189

World Feb. 17, 2009 - 06:20AM JST ( 7 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

7 Comments

0

TriumvereFeb. 17, 2009 - 09:22AM JST

While normally I'd be against the government keeping info from the public, in this case it would have been justified to keep his identity secret as long as possible. The prejudicial effect of a tragedy of this magnitude will make it difficult for him to get a fair trial. We don't know if the man is guilty, but already people want him to hang.
0

buddha4brainsFeb. 17, 2009 - 09:27AM JST

“Those suspected of vigilantism would not be prevented from behaving in an abhorrent way simply by suppressing his name,” said Magistrate John Klestadt.

So is the judge giving a subtle nod to vigilantism? "Oh well, it's gonna happen anyway so why bother protecting the scum?"
0

mrsynikFeb. 17, 2009 - 09:32AM JST

Triumvere - exactly, the disgusting lynch mob mentality that these bogans now have is a disgusting blight on Australia. The same thing happens when convicted peadophiles are released after serving their time. This guy needs to be proven guilty before aspertions can be cast.
0

StonefishFeb. 17, 2009 - 09:48AM JST

I think the judge is right in a way. Better to have the identity released formally rather than have rumours and inuendo floating about. The reason he lifted the suppression was that his identity had already been leaked.

I agree mrsynik. The guy has questions to answer, and the lynchmob are wrong in seeking vengence before justice.

It's understandable that people get caught up in the emotions, but it's also easy to imagine that those most vocal in calling for his torture etc probably haven't suffered any personal loss at all - just bogans.
0

donkusaiFeb. 17, 2009 - 02:28PM JST

If this guy proves to be innocent, then these "vigilantes" have effectively ruined his life. I almost think it would be better to slap a full media ban on revealing the names of anyone not proven guilty. They could report all other facts just as well be referring to "the accused". Then let the courts sort it out and if he's found guilty, then the lock him up and release his name.
0

YelnatsFeb. 17, 2009 - 03:44PM JST

Not guilty until proven guilty. But kiddie porn on his computer? He can`t erase that evidence. How and why did they blame this guy? What was the proof?
0

TriumvereFeb. 17, 2009 - 06:18PM JST

That, Yelnats, is what the trial is for.