system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that it is extremely, extremely, extremely unjust for the media to follow a court case, provide a perspective on it, and show the face of the person on trial. Please somehow CMV.

I could not feel more strongly about this. It is absolutely ridiculous that a person before they are innocent or guilty has their face shown to the public and therefore associated with a crime.
It's completely ridiculous and mind numbingly preposterous to think that a possibly innocent man accused of rape has their face shown, accused of murder has their face shown to ignorant people who take the media on face value.

The person, because of the media spreading their face, is now under threat from the general public. People who may have only seen the first headline and think they did it.

If a man is convicted of rape or murder of a child, then is proven innocent, already their face has been shown to people in that community. The people who don't consider the evidence or respect the outcome, who remain ignorant, now will hold no restraint in thinking it is "just" to beat the shit out of him. Because ignorant and easily influenced people want to play "hero" and attack the guy they think is bad guy to get some cheap "look how much of a hero I am" kicks.

The person whether guilty or innocent is publicly shamed and now prone to attack eg Zimmerman, the "Dingo ate my baby" (Azaria Chamberlain) case.
Azaria Chamberlain, when I read a news article about it, was one of the most heart breaking of these. This poor mother lost her child, and was criticised for not showing enough emotion. Because she wasn't "likeable" by the general public because she didn't provide them with the expected exaggerated crying and emotion, there was ridiculing of her story by the public and media in Australia which influenced the court case itself.

(If you can, provide me some more examples and I'll make a a list.)


Isn't there a law that makes public defamation illegal?
gpt
There are two arguments against your position, which may change your view. Firstly, publication of who has been accused of a crime can allow other victims to feel like they can come forward. In the UK, the most prolific paedophile for decades was a 'well-loved' celebrity called Jimmy Savile. He operated with impunity for years, until the first real public investigation began. Then literally hundreds of victims came forward. All people who had believed the lie that they were weak and no one would believe them. Individually they were too frightening to come forward. Together, they have shone light on horrific crimes, and - albeit too late - the truth has come out. 

Secondly, public trials allow scrutiny of the judicial system, review of the state's power, a guard against corruption, and allow the public to see justice done. This ought to strengthen the community, give people faith in the justice system (which should guard against vigilante attacks), and deter future crimes - as potential criminals can see that they too could be brought to book.