Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
Regarding your bank employee: there are two distinct things I have to say about that. First of all, being employed at a bank requires a screening here, because it's easy to commit fraud, or abuse personal information. So the bank would be informed in this case, similar things apply for, for example, teachers and allegations of child abuse. OTOH, due to privacy, the employer requires you offer a 'certificate of good conduct' specifically for that job description, but they are not allowed to see your files at the DOJ. This means that the employee has to request a certificate, and he either gets one or not, but the employer only sees the certificate, or not, without knowing why it was or was not granted.

For jobs where you don't need a certificate of good conduct (and you need one for a lot of jobs), I imagine you could call in sick, or call in to say you have legal troubles without specification. It's not really their business is it, if it doesn't affect your work. Especially since at this time you are only a suspect and not convicted.
This sounds both highly opaque and a bit strange. Not knowing why an employee has/hasn't gotten a "clean bill of health" in their criminal background seems like a recipe for bureaucratic nightmare. It also basically creates a system where someone who has done something wrong is basically scarred for life in the employment market.

We have background checks where employers can specifically see if there is a criminal past. A bank shouldn't hire a convicted thief. But I don't see any reason why a carnival operator shouldn't hire one. People deserve second chances after all.

More importantly, there is a difference between telling your family, friends, and professional contacts, on a need to know basis if you want, and it being publicly announced. If you are accused of abusing a child, chances are your house may be trashed and you are forced to move, for only being accused. The big issue is that in one situation, the person decides himself what he shares with who, and in the other the DA/media spread it. That is a huge difference.

Note that indictments are not kept secret here, but privacy is also protected. I don't think it's law, but more of a gentleman's agreement that media never report the full name of suspects or recognizable images.
Once again, I think the opaque nature of this can really muddy the waters in a very different direction. The DSK case has been a media mess, but it doesn't negate the public interest in knowing if someone is indicted for a crime.

Using the logic of this "gentlemen's agreement" (which I'm sure protects the elite more than anyone else), Osama Bin Laden's name could not be published as the mastermind of September 11 simply because he was never formally convicted.

I realize that's an extreme example, but I'm trying to highlight how subjective this "gentlemen's agreement" actually is. I think that matters of law and media deserve clarity, not agreements to censor facts from the public.