From time to time we experience a strong popular reaction to some event or other. The vehicle used to spread such popular concern is generally Facebook. The latest such reaction followed the arraignment of a member of the Society of Christian Doctrine (MUSEUM). This gentleman, known to all as a real gentleman, was accused of indecent assault, or something of the sort.
The popular reaction raises a number of issues.
Do the police drag to court anyone who is accused by anyone of child abuse without previously thoroughly investigating the allegations? From what has transpired so far, it seems that the police conducted no real investigations in this case. Suffice to say that other adults who were within one meter or so away from the alleged incident, in the most public of places, were not interviewed by the police.
The case raises a second issue. How safe are people who work with children? Taking children for a hike, or a social occasion or helping them if there is an accident, or any other type of contact has become a hazardous occupation. It is enough for one of the kids to cry wolf and one finds himself in jail fighting to defend one’s innocence and reputation.
The concern shown by the Malta Union of Teachers is not misplaced. More so since our children and adolescents have been ‘sexualised’ beyond imagination by the bombardment of certain media products.
Our papers reported shocking reports of adolescent girls publicly tempting their teachers, or worse. Let me add another example. I heard of a ten - or so - year old boy who ‘liked’ Playboy on his Facebook account, obtained after he lied about his age. Would than one be surprised if such sexualised kids invent all sorts of stuff about their teachers?
This latest incident also kindled a debate which for many years has been on the back burner of media ethics discussion in Malta. When should one name, if one should name at all, people accused of?
The issue centres on the never-ending debate which tries to find a balance between people’s right to know and their right for privacy. It was never easy to strike a balance and it is becoming more and more difficult to find one.
The practice in Malta, as in many other countries, has long been to name people when they are arraigned in court, except whenever the court decides otherwise.
Unfortunately in recent years this practice had been expanded to also naming people who were merely suspects or who were just being investigated by the police. This practice, except in particular cases of public interest, is unethical. (Public interest is not to be confused with ‘interest to the public’. The former is considered to be the basis of rights in a democratic society. The latter has to do with curiosity. There is no right or duty to satisfy such curiosity.)
There are arguments for and against the practice of naming people when they are accused in Court. On one side one can say that there is public interest in naming people as it can dispel suspicions that some people are protected because of their positions. On the other hand, other arguments militate for the opposite position.
While legal wisdom suggests that one is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, popular lore takes it that one is guilty even after being pronounced innocent. I think that on balance one should err on the side of caution. Unless there is an overriding public interest people’s names should not be published except when they are found to be guilty or, if they so wish, innocent.