Public Arrests

@gollum,

Freedom of the press is another right in our Constitution. Its right up there with freedom to kvetch.

@farmerman,

Farmerman-
Thank you. Maybe you are right.

As I see it, the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. It says:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."

As I see it, if a prosecutor did not make an arrest record public and/or did not invite the press to film and report the person being arrested (prep walk), that would not constitute Congress making a law ... abridging the freedom of the press....

0 Replies

@gollum,

Quote:

The presumption of innocence is a basic American belief. Accordingly, why do we publicize arrests? We even allow the prosecutor to invite the press to the arrest to record the perp walk.

The presumption of innocence refers to the defendant's legal status, his/her status in a court of law before a jury. The prosecutor doesn't presume the person they have arrested to be innocent, the prosecutor believes thay have arrested the guilty party.

All arrests are a matter of public record. The person who is arrested must be arraigned before a judge--in a courtroom which is open to the public, including reporters for the media. But not all arrests are publicized. The media picks out those cases they think are newsworthy or are of public interest. The prosecutor may publicize an arrest when there is high public interest in a case--like the arrest of a serial killer, for instance, where the news of the arrest is intended to reassure the public or calm public fears.

Quote:

Since the arrest is public, why not require the prosecutor to make public any dropping of charges?

The charges would be dismissed by a judge in a public courtroom. So, the dropping of charges is made public.

1 Reply

@firefly,

However the perp walk is not call for and should be outlaw at once in all states and by the Federal government.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

However the perp walk is not call for and should be outlaw at once in all states and by the Federal government.

On what legal basis would you outlaw it?

So, when they move detainees from one location to another, like from a police station to jail, or from jail to court, would you suggest that they throw a sheet over all those people? The press hangs out outside public buildings when they know someone is being transported and, if these people are newsworthy, they want to get those pictures.
And, after they have been charged, if they are out on bail, the press will be outside the courthouse every time these defendants show up for a court hearing.

Sometimes there is intense public interest in a suspect. That is true with people who have been arrested for heinous crimes, or highly publicized crimes, or celebrities or well known or notorious people. Seeing photos not only satisfies public curiosity, it verifies the fact that these people are in custody.

I'm not sure there is much difference between press photographers getting shots of someone in custody being transported from one place to another, which is what the "perp walk" is, and the person's mug shot being available for public view, and those mug shots now appear all over the internet besides being shown in the media.

3 Replies

@firefly,

You are not suppose to make a person look guilty by the actions of the state such as bringing a defendant in chains in front of a jury.

The same principals should apply before trials when it come to perp walks.

You can move a defendant from one place to another without posing him or her in front of cameras in handcuffs surrounded by law enforcement people.

It did not take a large numbers of big police officers to move DSK in handcuffs for example nor was it call for to posed him for cameras when doing so.

Other nations do not do this silliness and yet are able to move defendants around for court hearings and so on.

You are as aware of this as well as I am and once more you are not being at all honest in claiming perp walks just happen and are not set up by the police and prosecution to paint a picture of someone who is guilty in the public mind long before his or her day in court.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

You are not suppose to make a person look guilty by the actions of the state such as bringing a defendant in chains in front of a jury.

The same principals should apply before trials when it come to perp walks.

The so-called "perp walks" take place when someone in custody is being transported from one place to another and the press is there to capture the moment. When transporting a prisoner, that person is in handcuffs, so this is standard procedure.

Showing images of these "perp walks" is not essentially different than the police mug shots that appear all over the internet after people are arrested in terms of their effect.

The fact of the arrest is not secret, so what difference does it make if images of the person in custody are shown?

Quote:

once more you are not being at all honest in claiming perp walks just happen and are not set up by the police and prosecution to paint a picture of someone who is guilty in the public mind long before his or her day in court.

Stop questioning my honesty. You are not a mind reader, and I am not being at all dishonest in stating my opinions on this matter.

Just the fact that the person was arrested arrouses suspicions about their guilt in the public mind--as well it should. The person was arrested on the basis of some evidence that linked them to a crime.
On CNN a little while ago they showed a photo of a man just arrested on suspicion of being a serial killer in California. They showed another photo of a man just arrested for cutting women in Virginia. There is very little difference between this sort of reporting and a "perp walk", and it does involve an issue of freedom of the press, as well as the public's right to know such information.

Very few of the many defendants arrested every day are at all newsworthy. And, for those who are, potential jurors are carefully questioned regarding how much attention they paid to pre-trial publicity from any source.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Would you prefer that the government keep arrests secret?

What a strange world you live in Bill. People just disappear with no public record.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

The so-called "perp walks" take place when someone in custody is being transported from one place to another and the press is there to capture the moment. When transporting a prisoner, that person is in handcuffs, so this is standard procedure.

How can you be that dishonest and do you think that the others on this website are that stupid?

In any very large public buildings there are loading docks and similar private enterences that does not require you to march a defendant out the front door and stand there so that the the camera men can get good shots.

In fact no one including the mayor of New York are claiming that perp walks are not completely set up events by the police and not just the natural outcome of moving defendants around.

You know being dishonest is one thing Firefly but you take it over the top.

1 Reply

@parados,

Keeping arrests secret and embarrassing people charge with a crime but still consider innocent until proven otherwise is two differences things.

In fact embarrassing them in a matter design to reduce in the public mind that they are innocent until proven otherwise.

Sorry but the rest of the Western world do not so such silliness and it seems to work out just fine for them.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You are saying it isn't embarrassing to be arrested unless someone films it?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You are saying it isn't embarrassing to be arrested unless someone films it?

It sure far less likely to reduce their rights to a fair trial and the reduction of being presume innocent is just the reason the government does this nonsense.

1 Reply

@parados,

You make a good point. Requiring that the police agency make public the name of the person it arrests is a protection against "disappearing people" that occur in some dictatorships. I never thought of that.

1 Reply

@gollum,

Footnote the congress had just pass a law that allow people to disappear at the will of the president forever if so desire.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

What a crock of **** Bill...

If publicity precludes a fair trial then it can be moved or argued that no fair trial can occur.

1 Reply

@parados,

Sorry but the issue is showing off a defendant in front of news cameras as if he was convicted of a crime with handcuffs and police guards for no good reason other then to place the idea in the public mind that he is guilty.

There are prosecutors in New York State that do no allow perp walks in the areas they control and in spite of Firefly nonsense there is no need to have set up photo opportunities like that were stage for DSK.

0 Replies

@gollum,

gollum wrote:

Accordingly, why do we publicize arrests? We even allow the prosecutor to invite the press to the arrest to record the perp walk.

truly bizarre that this is allowed/encouraged in the U.S.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

However the perp walk is not call for and should be outlaw at once in all states and by the Federal government.

100 % agreed

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
However the perp walk is not call for and should be outlaw at once in all states and by the Federal government.

On what legal basis would you outlaw it?

So, when they move detainees from one location to another, like from a police station to jail, or from jail to court, would you suggest that they throw a sheet over all those people?

in Canada, those who have been charged but not convicted are protected from exposure. transfers are usually done inside buildings, with court vehicles emerging from buildings with darkened windows. If it has to be done outside, the charged person's face is usually covered with a jacket.

there would be no upside to the press releasing a photo of someone's face or name - as the reporter and their employer would be charged

0 Replies

Public Arrests

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know