Should names of arrested people be published at all?

[radcen]

This thread is prompted by the thread regarding 'Anonymous' and the publishing of a police officer's name, which can be found here. I wanted to discuss the more common topic of the media publishing names in general. Names of people arrested, but not yet convicted, for crimes, and don't care to derail that thread. This thread is similar, but not intended to be identical.

Time to end Police Blotter - chapelhillnews.com | Time to end Police Blotter

Before we start let's get clear that the media has the legal right to publish names (and addresses). That's not the question. The question is... Should they? Should they publish names of people who have been arrested but not yet convicted? There are examples in the linked article of how publication can unfairly wreak havoc on a person. "I am legally allowed to do so.", is only a legal argument, not a moral argument. We SAY "innocent until proven guilty"... do we really mean it?

I have always had a serious issue with the publishing of names of people who have been arrested. I would have less of a problem with a "Conviction Blotter", the publishing of names of people who have been convicted. I would also have less of a problem with a "Follow-Up Police Blotter" where the media lists the names and results of every person previously listed as being arrested... but that's probably too much like actual work.

 

[Maverick]

I'm surprised that defense lawyers haven't banded together and sued news outlets for publishing names of those arrested.If you go to jury duty and a lawyer asks you about "Innocent until proven guilty" and you disagree with the concept they get all hot under the collar and have been known to lecture you about it.Publishing the names is tantamount to saying they are guilty and poisons the jury pool.In today's world of getting the case closed as fast as possible there are many mistakes made and the wrong person arrested but, it's near impossible to fix a wrongful arrest in the public's eye much less when you fill out a job or loan application and one of the questions is "Have you ever been arrested?" Even though you were wrongfully arrested the answer is still yes.

 

[jambalaya]

I definintely agree. But especially today in the 24/7 news cycle we'll never get the media as a whole to agree. Thus they will always be rushing to get the story out first. Very unfair to those charged with a crime.

 

[MaggieD]

I get what you're saying, but I think the public is better served with the information than without it.

Rod Blagojevich wasn't convicted for several years after his arrest. He remained free during that time. Should that undercover operation have been kept secret? He retains his governorship; retains the right to appoint an Illinois Senator to replace Barrack Obama? Public pressure made that an impossibility...because the public knew.

John Gacy wasn't convicted for several years after his arrest. He was let out on bail after being charged with raping and torturing a young man. His killing spree actually continued during that time, but we'll never know how many young man didn't die because of his initial arrest report in the paper.

A Catholic priest is arrested and charged with sexual child abuse. Is the public better served by waiting the several years until his trial? Or is the public better served by the knowledge that he'd been arrested and charged? I'd say the latter.

Do I have a right to know that my 16-year-old son's best friend was arrested for DUI? I think my right to know this supercedes his right to confidentiality until and unless he's proven guilty...which may be plea-bargained down to a lesser offense for expediency.

I could go on...but I think I've made a legitimate point. The public's right to know...chips fall where they may.

 

[jambalaya]

You make a legitimate point Maggie. I guess we have to weigh the public's safety against the right to a fair trial and someone's reputation. I wish there were a better way.

 

[Paschendale]

This also has the upshot of ensuring that no one is arrested in secret. If an arrest happens, the public knows about it. No one is swooped away in the dark of night. At least, we hope not.

 

[radcen]

I get what you're saying, but I think the public is better served with the information than without it.

Rod Blagojevich wasn't convicted for several years after his arrest. He remained free during that time. Should that undercover operation have been kept secret? He retains his governorship; retains the right to appoint an Illinois Senator to replace Barrack Obama? Public pressure made that an impossibility...because the public knew.

John Gacy wasn't convicted for several years after his arrest. He was let out on bail after being charged with raping and torturing a young man. His killing spree actually continued during that time, but we'll never know how many young man didn't die because of his initial arrest report in the paper.

A Catholic priest is arrested and charged with sexual child abuse. Is the public better served by waiting the several years until his trial? Or is the public better served by the knowledge that he'd been arrested and charged? I'd say the latter.

Do I have a right to know that my 16-year-old son's best friend was arrested for DUI? I think my right to know this supercedes his right to confidentiality until and unless he's proven guilty...which may be plea-bargained down to a lesser offense for expediency.

I could go on...but I think I've made a legitimate point. The public's right to know...chips fall where they may.

This also has the upshot of ensuring that no one is arrested in secret. If an arrest happens, the public knows about it. No one is swooped away in the dark of night. At least, we hope not.

These are legitimate points, absolutely. Especially the part about plea bargains... which is probably a whole 'nother thread all by itself. Maybe if people in general were more thoughtful about these scenarios, rather than more presumptive, I'd have less of an issue.

...it's near impossible to fix a wrongful arrest in the public's eye much less when you fill out a job or loan application and one of the questions is "Have you ever been arrested?" Even though you were wrongfully arrested the answer is still yes.

You hit on another tangent that is an annoyance of mine. The question should be, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?".

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I have always had a serious issue with the publishing of names of people who have been arrested.

What if the government arrested people and was not obligated to reveal who they had in custody?
Which do you see as the lesser evil? Secret arrests? Or revealing what the government has done?

 

[Thunder]

arrested? no.

charged with a crime? sure.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What if the government arrested people and was not obligated to reveal who they had in custody?
Which do you see as the lesser evil? Secret arrests? Or revealing what the government has done?

I imagine if "the gubmint" wants to arrest someone and keep it a secret, they can. They control the information on who's been arrested; all they have to do is not release it.

A simple remedy is mandating a question at booking: do you want your arrest made public? The default answer is no, protecting privacy in cases where the arrestee is uncooperative or incapable of consent.

So far as the public's "right to know," I find this not the least bit persuasive. No one should be forced by the state to have their name dragged through the mud until after the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

arrested? no.

charged with a crime? sure.

I agree. I can make a false claim that Maggie molested my son while babysitting him. She's arrested for child molestation. Her name and face are plastered all over the news. If shes VERY LUCKY, she'll later be found not guilty. Is THAT also published as readily as her arrest? Of course not. Because that doesn't make ratings. So its basically just free slander as she could possibly come after me for false arrest, but she couldn't touch me for the media putting her name and face out there and the damage to her reputation THAT did, as that was out of my hands.

Hopefully, she'll reconsider her position after she contemplates the scenario I have put forth.

 

[MaggieD]

So far as the public's "right to know," I find this not the least bit persuasive. No one should be forced by the state to have their name dragged through the mud until after the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anthony Rizzo was arrested and charged with DUI on Sunday early morning, November 27th.

This is hardly dragging someone's name through the mud. Takes the idiots reading it to do that.

 

[MaggieD]

I agree. I can make a false claim that Maggie molested my son while babysitting him. She's arrested for child molestation. Her name and face are plastered all over the news. If shes VERY LUCKY, she'll later be found not guilty. Is THAT also published as readily as her arrest? Of course not. Because that doesn't make ratings. So its basically just free slander as she could possibly come after me for false arrest, but she couldn't touch me for the media putting her name and face out there and the damage to her reputation THAT did, as that was out of my hands.

Hopefully, she'll reconsider her position after she contemplates the scenario I have put forth.

Nope. For one thing, Don'tWorryBeHappy's word is not enough to get me arrested. By the time a warrant is issued for my arrest, in your made-up scenerio, they've decided not to pursue the case. And newspapers don't publish, "MaggieD is being investigated for suspected child sexual abuse."

I think you're also wrong about you being off the hook for damages if your testimony or complaint to the police was found to be false. Ruining my reputation would be a foreseeable consequence of your false charges. I'd say you'd be in big trouble. JMO.

But that aside, it is not the job of newspapers to protect the rights of the innocent. That job falls on the court system.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Nope. For one thing, Don'tWorryBeHappy's word is not enough to get me arrested. By the time a warrant is issued for my arrest, in your made-up scenerio, they've decided not to pursue the case. And newspapers don't publish, "MaggieD is being investigated for suspected child sexual abuse."

I think you're also wrong about you being off the hook for damages if your testimony or complaint to the police was found to be false. Ruining my reputation would be a foreseeable consequence of your false charges. I'd say you'd be in big trouble. JMO.

But that aside, it is not the job of newspapers to protect the rights of the innocent. That job falls on the court system.

Not to take this thread off course, but you HONESTLY think that if I coerce my 5yo son to say you touched his wee wee, that you wouldn't be arrested? And I promise, your lawyer would say you don't want to go in front of a jury with a crying little 5yo boy having to testify against you, the jury would burn you.

You apparently have ZERO experience with our justice system. You put FAR too much faith in it. Did you hear about that teacher that was arrested for molesting the two girls? There was no evidence, other than their testimony. She spent her LIFE SAVINGS defending herself. She was eventually found not guilty, but not until her name, face and reputation were drug through the mud and damaged forever. She will no longer be a school teacher. She almost lost her husband, she DID lose everything defending herself. Come to find out, the girls were caught touching EACH OTHER, and in order to save face, they reported the lady for touching them.

You better believe my word alone could get you arrested. My sons word alone could ruin your life forever. You better be VERY careful with that holier than thou attitude you have.

You REALLY need to read this.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article27...al-abuse-allegations-in-custody-disputes.html

and this...

http://michaelk.hubpages.com/hub/accused-of-child-abuse

Even though 60% percent of reported abuse cases are false, this offense has the highest conviction rate of all felony crimes.

If that quote right there doesn't scare the living **** out of you, you are very very lost cause and your blind faith in our "justice" system could very well one day bite you in the ass.

Oh yea, it's not the newspapers jobs to do anything. The courts protect the innocent through trials. Nobody's arrests should be posted as they haven't had due process. They are basically "guilty until proven innocent" and that's not the way it works. Posting arrests in the paper could taint the jury pool, which makes our justice system a joke. How many times have you seen a mans photo with "So and so accused of child molestation" and thought to yourself "Well, he's innocent until proven guilty?" NOBODY DOES. Everybody wants his head on a stake. Nobody gives a damn about guilt or innocence when it comes to child sexual abuse. That poor teacher I mentioned earlier STILL has people that want her dead and want to do her great bodily harm as they think she got away with child abuse. They don't give a damn about the not guilty verdict. That woman will live in fear for her life for the rest of her life. All because two preteen girls were caught touching each other and didn't want to face the consequences of their behavior.

It's really sad that the country is filled with so many people like you, completely ignorant of the truth and of how the world really works. One day you might "get it", there is always hope. I just pray that you don't "get it" through an unfortunate first hand experience in our justice system. I would like you to learn, but I would never wish false accusations on anyone. Nobody deserves to be put through that ringer.

Here is an attorneys page on the issue. Read this. You obviously need to.

http://www.rhodesmeryhew.com/CM/Custom/Child-Sexual-Abuse.asp

 

[Temporal]

Everything the police do to the public, including criminal records and detainment records, must fall under Freedom of Information.

The alternative is that we never know the names of people who are arrested, and that is an unacceptable outcome in a free Republic.

 

[radcen]

This is hardly dragging someone's name through the mud. Takes the idiots reading it to do that.

That's why the question is being raised... because that's what people do.

Even the example you gave earlier gave three real-life examples and one fictitious scenario about your son's friend being arrested for DUI, and to be honest, even in your fictitious scenario you leave the impression that you would be ready and willing to presume guilt.

ETA: Not calling you an idiot, just making a point about "guilty until proven innocent" and how it's human nature to some degree to jump to conclusions.

 

[radcen]

Everything the police do to the public, including criminal records and detainment records, must fall under Freedom of Information.

The alternative is that we never know the names of people who are arrested, and that is an unacceptable outcome in a free Republic.

With all my concerns, I cannot disagree with this.

 

[the_recruit]

Not to take this thread off course, but you HONESTLY think that if I coerce my 5yo son to say you touched his wee wee, that you wouldn't be arrested? And I promise, your lawyer would say you don't want to go in front of a jury with a crying little 5yo boy having to testify against you, the jury would burn you.

You apparently have ZERO experience with our justice system. You put FAR too much faith in it. Did you hear about that teacher that was arrested for molesting the two girls? There was no evidence, other than their testimony. She spent her LIFE SAVINGS defending herself. She was eventually found not guilty, but not until her name, face and reputation were drug through the mud and damaged forever. She will no longer be a school teacher. She almost lost her husband, she DID lose everything defending herself. Come to find out, the girls were caught touching EACH OTHER, and in order to save face, they reported the lady for touching them.

You better believe my word alone could get you arrested. My sons word alone could ruin your life forever. You better be VERY careful with that holier than thou attitude you have.

You REALLY need to read this.

The Nuclear Option: False Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Disputes

and this...

Falsely Accused of Child Abuse



If that quote right there doesn't scare the living **** out of you, you are very very lost cause and your blind faith in our "justice" system could very well one day bite you in the ass.

Oh yea, it's not the newspapers jobs to do anything. The courts protect the innocent through trials. Nobody's arrests should be posted as they haven't had due process. They are basically "guilty until proven innocent" and that's not the way it works. Posting arrests in the paper could taint the jury pool, which makes our justice system a joke. How many times have you seen a mans photo with "So and so accused of child molestation" and thought to yourself "Well, he's innocent until proven guilty?" NOBODY DOES. Everybody wants his head on a stake. Nobody gives a damn about guilt or innocence when it comes to child sexual abuse. That poor teacher I mentioned earlier STILL has people that want her dead and want to do her great bodily harm as they think she got away with child abuse. They don't give a damn about the not guilty verdict. That woman will live in fear for her life for the rest of her life. All because two preteen girls were caught touching each other and didn't want to face the consequences of their behavior.

It's really sad that the country is filled with so many people like you, completely ignorant of the truth and of how the world really works. One day you might "get it", there is always hope. I just pray that you don't "get it" through an unfortunate first hand experience in our justice system. I would like you to learn, but I would never wish false accusations on anyone. Nobody deserves to be put through that ringer.

Here is an attorneys page on the issue. Read this. You obviously need to.

Seattle Child Sexual Abuse Defense Attorney | Washington False Accusations of Child Abuse Lawyer | Puget Sound Minor Molestation Defense Law Firm

"The judge will typically grant an Emergency Ex-Parte Order giving the mother temporary sole custody of the children and restrain the father from having any contact with his children, even when no additional evidence beyond the mother’s word exists."

The author presents this as if it were a bad idea. To me, that's a prudent precautionary measure. It's far worse to keep a child in a situation in which they may suffer more sexual abuse than to temporarily keep a innocent father from having custody. Absolutely.

Also, I agree that it's unfortunate that innocent fathers get falsely accused but I see no solutions being offered to this problem in any of these articles. It's easy to criticize the current approach to handling accusations of child abuse. Not so easy to offer an approach that's better and still protects children suffering abuse.

 

[radcen]

"The judge will typically grant an Emergency Ex-Parte Order giving the mother temporary sole custody of the children and restrain the father from having any contact with his children, even when no additional evidence beyond the mother’s word exists."

The author presents this as if it were a bad idea. To me, that's a prudent precautionary measure. It's far worse to keep a child in a situation in which they may suffer more sexual abuse than to temporarily keep a innocent father from having custody. Absolutely.

Also, I agree that it's unfortunate that innocent fathers get falsely accused but I see no solutions being offered to this problem in any of these articles. It's easy to criticize the current approach to handling accusations of child abuse. Not so easy to offer an approach that's better and still protects children suffering abuse.

I would be more prone to agree with you if there were some kind of penalty for when it ends up being clearly identified as a false accusation.

 

[jamesrage]

This thread is prompted by the thread regarding 'Anonymous' and the publishing of a police officer's name, which can be found here. I wanted to discuss the more common topic of the media publishing names in general. Names of people arrested, but not yet convicted, for crimes, and don't care to derail that thread. This thread is similar, but not intended to be identical.

Time to end Police Blotter - chapelhillnews.com | Time to end Police Blotter

Before we start let's get clear that the media has the legal right to publish names (and addresses). That's not the question. The question is... Should they? Should they publish names of people who have been arrested but not yet convicted? There are examples in the linked article of how publication can unfairly wreak havoc on a person. "I am legally allowed to do so.", is only a legal argument, not a moral argument. We SAY "innocent until proven guilty"... do we really mean it?

I have always had a serious issue with the publishing of names of people who have been arrested. I would have less of a problem with a "Conviction Blotter", the publishing of names of people who have been convicted. I would also have less of a problem with a "Follow-Up Police Blotter" where the media lists the names and results of every person previously listed as being arrested... but that's probably too much like actual work.

I think that names of the arrested is something the police should not be releasing.A man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

I think that names of the arrested is something the police should not be releasing.A man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Can a post be thanked 500 times?

 

[MaggieD]

Not to take this thread off course, but you HONESTLY think that if I coerce my 5yo son to say you touched his wee wee, that you wouldn't be arrested? And I promise, your lawyer would say you don't want to go in front of a jury with a crying little 5yo boy having to testify against you, the jury would burn you.

You apparently have ZERO experience with our justice system. You put FAR too much faith in it. Did you hear about that teacher that was arrested for molesting the two girls? There was no evidence, other than their testimony. She spent her LIFE SAVINGS defending herself. She was eventually found not guilty, but not until her name, face and reputation were drug through the mud and damaged forever. She will no longer be a school teacher. She almost lost her husband, she DID lose everything defending herself. Come to find out, the girls were caught touching EACH OTHER, and in order to save face, they reported the lady for touching them.

You better believe my word alone could get you arrested. My sons word alone could ruin your life forever. You better be VERY careful with that holier than thou attitude you have.

You REALLY need to read this.

The Nuclear Option: False Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Disputes

and this...

Falsely Accused of Child Abuse

If that quote right there doesn't scare the living **** out of you, you are very very lost cause and your blind faith in our "justice" system could very well one day bite you in the ass.

Oh yea, it's not the newspapers jobs to do anything. The courts protect the innocent through trials. Nobody's arrests should be posted as they haven't had due process. They are basically "guilty until proven innocent" and that's not the way it works. Posting arrests in the paper could taint the jury pool, which makes our justice system a joke. How many times have you seen a mans photo with "So and so accused of child molestation" and thought to yourself "Well, he's innocent until proven guilty?" NOBODY DOES. Everybody wants his head on a stake. Nobody gives a damn about guilt or innocence when it comes to child sexual abuse. That poor teacher I mentioned earlier STILL has people that want her dead and want to do her great bodily harm as they think she got away with child abuse. They don't give a damn about the not guilty verdict. That woman will live in fear for her life for the rest of her life. All because two preteen girls were caught touching each other and didn't want to face the consequences of their behavior.

It's really sad that the country is filled with so many people like you, completely ignorant of the truth and of how the world really works. One day you might "get it", there is always hope. I just pray that you don't "get it" through an unfortunate first hand experience in our justice system. I would like you to learn, but I would never wish false accusations on anyone. Nobody deserves to be put through that ringer.

Here is an attorneys page on the issue. Read this. You obviously need to.

Seattle Child Sexual Abuse Defense Attorney | Washington False Accusations of Child Abuse Lawyer | Puget Sound Minor Molestation Defense Law Firm

Well, okay. Let me backtrack and reneg. Ha! In the particular situation you outline, I can understand where you're coming from. And that because I know a guy who lost his wife and family after a two-year battle with the DA...having spent all of his/their money and losing their home to defending himself against the accusations of the 12-year-old daughter of a good friend.

There are always going to be exceptions...times when the information is too darned prejudicial, as they say; and in those cases I might agree with you. If the guy/woman was innocent. How do we know? And how do we protect others? We don't even try??

 

[Thunder]

unfortunately, many municipal codes of conducts say it is a violation to simply be arrested for certain crimes, regardless of your guilt or innocence.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Everything the police do to the public, including criminal records and detainment records, must fall under Freedom of Information.

The alternative is that we never know the names of people who are arrested, and that is an unacceptable outcome in a free Republic.

I don't see why you're under the impression that a piece of paper has some magical power over the state, preventing them from simply lying about whether or not they have arrested someone.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This thread is prompted by the thread regarding 'Anonymous' and the publishing of a police officer's name, which can be found here. I wanted to discuss the more common topic of the media publishing names in general. Names of people arrested, but not yet convicted, for crimes, and don't care to derail that thread. This thread is similar, but not intended to be identical.

Time to end Police Blotter - chapelhillnews.com | Time to end Police Blotter

Before we start let's get clear that the media has the legal right to publish names (and addresses). That's not the question. The question is... Should they? Should they publish names of people who have been arrested but not yet convicted? There are examples in the linked article of how publication can unfairly wreak havoc on a person. "I am legally allowed to do so.", is only a legal argument, not a moral argument. We SAY "innocent until proven guilty"... do we really mean it?

I have always had a serious issue with the publishing of names of people who have been arrested. I would have less of a problem with a "Conviction Blotter", the publishing of names of people who have been convicted. I would also have less of a problem with a "Follow-Up Police Blotter" where the media lists the names and results of every person previously listed as being arrested... but that's probably too much like actual work.

Well: I don't think they *should* have that 'right' - I think all of that should be private and only at the discretion of the individual in question.