Please - this is NOT a thread about the case, as such, I find those threads concerning - BUT about some of the differences between the American, and some other countries' practices - and their effect.
For instance:
i) In Australia, and, I believe, Great Britain at the very least, the name of a juvenile involved in a criminal matter is not revealed, whether they be alleged victim, or alleged perpetrator, except in very special circumstances (eg they have been kidnapped, and police seek public help to find them - or they have been murdered - or if they are alleged to have committed a very serious crime and are being tried as adults, or if it is in some way in the public interest.)
To these non-US eyes, it is very shocking to see the name and photograph of the young man alleged to have been abused by Jackson splashed all over the media - here, juveniles are protected to the point that, on the few occasions I have accompanied a minor who was raped or sexually abused to court, while she/he gave testimony - if the offender (these were cases where, oddly, a conviction was obtained, so I do not say "alleged" offender) was also a minor, it was a big deal to be allowed in to be a support person for the victim, because I would hear the name of the offender.
What do people think of the US practice? What is the reason for it? Which would you prefer? What do you think is the impact on young people so identified?
ii) The media circus. Here, both defence and prosecution are very limited as to what they can say about a case that is before the courts. The matter is considered sub judice. Occasionally, with high profile cases, the police will "leak" things - and/or the media will attempt, within the letter of the law, to try a case in the media (the Lindy Chamberlain case was a terrible example of both these occurrences) - but the organised propaganda campaigns that I think I detect in the US are not generally present. Full details are generally releasable only after the trial.
Again, the spectacle is very shocking to these non-US eyes. I presume it is allowed because of an interpretation of free speech? Do people think it aids justice? That it is societally positive? What do you think?
iii) This is unrelated - but, do people think this is going to be another black v white case, and do you think that high profile non-Caucasian people still - despite their wealth and power - are unfairly treated in the US justice system? I would think that, similarly to here, that poorer and obscure people of colour would tend to be - but I am interested in views re people who have achievedfame and fortune.
Judging the US legal system based on what goes on in, say, the Jackson case is probably a bad idea. I've served on jury duty several times and came away highly impressed with how seriously everybody took their various responsibilities.
A case like Jackson's, alas, or the Kobe Bryant case betray many standards. The media have some role in this, as do glory-hounding attorneys on both sides. I'm sure, for example, that a minor's name should never be publicized in a case like this. I'm trying to pay as little attention to this case as possible, because I think it's more a freak show than anything else.
Please don't judge our system on the basis of the Jackson trial!
0 Replies
ehBeth
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:26 pm
We have very strict publication bans around identity of abused minors in Canada. The person charged often cannot be identified, as their name, and the details of the relationship to the child, would mean the child could possibly be identified.
Sleeping next to the elephant means we've probably become a bit jaded to the circus. But the laws are much tighter here.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:32 pm
I would be extraordinarily happy not to make such a judgment, D'Artagnan!!!! But - it is ALLOWED to happen! Would the name of the child, for instance, normally be suppressed? How often do cases become media circuses? I guess what I am getting at is the different LAWS on such matters...
Interesting to have such differences in the systems of countries that grew so similarly, ehBeth. We seem much more like you guys - but, I suppose, the US invented its laws after a revolution - we inherited them after centuries of slow evolution with no cataclysm, and made changes slowly.
0 Replies
Ceili
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:50 pm
I think but I'm not completely sure if you can print any name of a sexual abuse victim in Canada without the express permission of the victim.
You cannot print the name of any minor whether the victim or perpetrator of any crime, except in very special/rare circumstances where a minor is at large and a suspected danger to the community or themselves. A court order is needed in these cases and once the minor is apprehended the name and or picture must not be printed again, ever. News outlets are rarely allowed to print anything specific in these cases as well.
In cases of family abuse the names are rarely printed, if ever, in order to protect the victim.
I had no idea the victim in the Jackson cases was publicized. I have seen pictures of his previous victim which I though was pretty appalling but generally the faces have been smudged out.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 04:55 pm
Interesting, Ceili.
What I hope will happen here is that people will come along to present the case FOR allowing the names to be made public, because it is incomprehensible to me - but there MUST be reasons for the US system to be the way it is on these matters. It isn't as though people in the US are not interested in and critical of their own system - gotta be a reason...
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 05:29 pm
dlowan wrote:
I would be extraordinarily happy not to make such a judgment, D'Artagnan!!!! But - it is ALLOWED to happen! Would the name of the child, for instance, normally be suppressed? How often do cases become media circuses? I guess what I am getting at is the different LAWS on such matters...
I think the key difference is in the laws regarding the press itself. NORMALLY, a minor's name wouldn't be able to be released by any of the parties in the case and would be secured in any trestimony (i.e. instead of using the child's name they'd use "A minor, John (or Jane) Doe...").
If somehow, the press gets the actual name of the minor we have no laws that prevent them from publishing it. Sometimes there may be a court order limiting the press's ability to release details but that would be on a case by case basis - not a standard in law.
The names come out in the really high profile cases because there is so mucgh media attention that eventually someone figures out who the victim was. In the Jackson case his own family went public with it. In 99.9% of the cases that aren't high profile the minor's name is never discovered or released to the public.
I think the mindset is probably attributable to the "Freedom of the Press" mindset. I guess is it probably one of the trade-offs.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 05:35 pm
What do you think of this particular trade-off, Fishin'?
For instance, the kid in this case is 12 years old. Be the allegations true, or false, his name and reputation is gonna be dragged through the mud. Do you think his parents ought to have the right to do that?
0 Replies
fishin
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 05:43 pm
I'm not particularly thrilled with it happening but I do question what the cost would be.
This kid's name was going to be dragged through the mud one way or another and I suspect his home life is already screwed up based on some of the other details that have come out about his family.
If his family hadn't come forward and the press had released his name I'd be irritated by the press releasing it. In this case the family went to the press. Do we muzzle the press and prevent them from reporting what is handed to them?
I'm sure it could be done with the appropriate laws but I think most Americans are so concernd with "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press" and what might get muzzled next that it'd never happen.
0 Replies
farmerman
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:39 pm
beat me to it fishin. The kids mom is the plaintiff, finding the name of the kid is a piece of cake. The parents sought the press coverage, its not a "system' thing dlowan. This happens in Canada also.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:41 pm
poor bloody kid....
0 Replies
farmerman
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 06:50 pm
ONCE MORE FOR CLARITY the kids parents are the plaintiffs , and theyve sought out the press.
Every state has its own laws concerning privacy of minors. The parents could have chosen a state that guarantees anonymity, like nY, where , statistically, more kids are murderers than in Iowa, which doent protect anonymity.
0 Replies
ehBeth
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:09 pm
farmerman, it does not happen like that in Canada. If the parent is the plaintiff, their name would not be released here. The law is very tough on any media outlet that releases any details that would identify, in any way, the minor victim, of sexual assault, where the case is in the courts.
as ceili pointed out, minors who are charged by offences may also not be identified. There was recently a case in Toronto where a 12 year old boy was murdered - by his 16 year old brother and 2 of his friends. It took a fair bit of legal fancy-dancing for the family to be able to put an obituary in the paper. They couldn't put in the child's family name, or put his brother's name in, or their stepfather's (as the brother and his friends had also attempted to kill him). It ended up being an obituary for Jonathon. The media discussion of this was very interesting.
0 Replies
farmerman
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:20 pm
now, to me, thats weird. If a perp is a perp, the fact that hes a kid and is kept anonymous is way to o PC for me.but its ok for a family, using a kid as bait, to destroy an adults reputation with impunity, is that what youre proud of/
However if say celine dione was messing with kids , and the kids parents went after her, the names would be kept from the news? If so then you really have a controlled press, no?
I just noticed yer avatar, Im tellin.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:21 pm
Farmerman - how do you mean it is not a "system" thing? Your system allows it - ours, and Canada's, eg, forbid it - whoever is the plaintiff.
The papers here, even if they found out (and they often would know) may not publish the name.
I am uncertain how the banning of such publication would have an effect on freedom of the press - I mean, it IS curtailing a freedom - but are there not a number of other things curtailed - like printing known lies - and such? Is the argument a slippery slope one? Certainly, your press is freer than ours - we have stricter libel laws, for instance - the press complain that this curtails investigative reporting - and it may - I do not really know for sure.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:26 pm
Farmerman - you misunderstand - I think.
The juvenile law here is based on the belief that kids have a right to be treated differently - ie given more protection by the law - than adults. This MAY be waived if the offence is so serious that the young person is tried as an adult.
This is based, I believe, on two premises
1. 80% of kids who tangle with the law do so only once (or are caught once) - then stop offending.Therefore it is sensible not to stigmatise them.
2. They have less judgement than adults - and ar eoffered more chance.
However, you are diverting the conversation - we were speaking of alleged juvenile VICTIMS' rights not to be identified - a clearer and different case, I think, than that of alleged offenders - though related.
0 Replies
ehBeth
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:31 pm
farmerman - the safety/sanety/rights of the child are held to be higher than my right to know anything. it makes sense to me. of course, if it's a really juicy case in Canada, you can always read about it in U.S. papers, or at U.S. websites. That recently became an issue in the Pickton case, until the U.S. reporters were barred from the courtroom. Most of what people know about Paul Bernardo came from U.S. websites. The battle about what will be revealed in that case, in Canada, goes on.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:35 pm
farmerman wrote:
now, to me, thats weird. If a perp is a perp, the fact that hes a kid and is kept anonymous is way to o PC for me.but its ok for a family, using a kid as bait, to destroy an adults reputation with impunity, is that what youre proud of/.
Yes, I am proud that we protect the identity of children in such cases, though i am glad you a emaking these points, because I am seriously trying to understand the opposite opinion. If the parents are doing as you say, they should be punished - I do not think the kid's life should be destroyed becasue he has, if he does have, rotten parents.
farmerman wrote:
However if say celine dione was messing with kids , and the kids parents went after her, the names would be kept from the news? If so then you really have a controlled press, no?
I just noticed yer avatar, Im tellin.
Yes, the names would be kept from the news -probably not celine's, though, here, sometimes names of alleged offenders are withheld until after committal - when it is determined that there is a case to answer - the kid and family's. How is this any different? I am not sure how celine got into this. Yes, there is unfairness that an alleged perpetrator can be named, and not the name of the person who accuses them - however, I think this is superseded by the need to protect children.
These are complex issues - that is why I raised them.
Yes, we have a more controlled press than you do - you see absolute freedom to print anything as what freedom means - no matter what harm it does? Would you place any limits on press freedom? What about malicious reports?
0 Replies
ehBeth
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:39 pm
farmerman wrote:
if say celine dione was messing with kids , and the kids parents went after her, the names would be kept from the news?
in this example, the child's name would be kept from the press, the parents' names would be kept from the press, and if there was any way to identify the child by identifying celine, then her name would be kept from the press.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:47 pm
Justice Oliver Holmes held that the first amendment has a limit, which he illustrated graphically by saying that the right of free speech does not entitle one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But you are not far off the mark to contend that Americans feel that the right of free speech is one of a paramount few. Our constitution might not have been ratified, if its supporters had not promised that a Bill of Rights would be the first order of business of the new Congress. As good as their word, the First Congress proposed 12 amendments, ten of which were ratified. The very first to be ratified, reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is probably the most worked over part of the constitution, and a subject of almost constant debate. For example, the Supremes recently upheld a campaign finance law, and immediately, people from all over the political continuum began to holler about their first amendment rights being trampled.
In none of this am i offering a contention of moral superiority, nor am i likely to entertain the notion of moral terpitude inherent in fifty sets of laws governing this issue.
I believe FM referred to Celine Dion as a way of offering a Canadian equivalent, in terms of celebrity, for Michael Jackson.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace