I've never understood why it is allowed to publish the names of the accused in the first place, until it is established if they are guilty or innocent.

In the U.K. (my homeland) as in many countries in the world the press are allowed to report the names of those accused but not charged with a crime. In Sweden (the country where am I living right now) this is not allowed, which means that when the press report on high profile cases going through the courts they generally make up their own "nicknames" for the accused. Right now they are reporting on the "Arboga Murderer" and a couple of years ago in a famous case here in Sweden involving a murder by members of a religious sect there was a female accused that the press called "The Bride of Christ". The press are only allowed to publish the names if the accused are found guilty, otherwise they slip back into the anonimity they had before the whole court case started.

I think this is a better system but obviously there are differing views.

I'm interested to know, why do you think it's important for the press to be allowed to publish the names of people accused of crimes before they have been found innocent or guilty?