Public Arrests

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Sometimes there is intense public interest in a suspect

that's no excuse for the release of the names or photos

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Would you prefer that the government keep arrests secret?

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

People don't just disappear. There is just no need for every rubber-necker to know the names and faces of every person who has been arrested. Charged is not convicted.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Couldn't agree more. Once something is public knowledge it is impossible to forget or erase. In cases where people are wrongly charged, where is their recourse?

2 Replies

@Ceili,

There are some countries in Europe -- my native Latvia is one of them -- where it is public policy (I don't know whether there's a law or if it's just agreed upon policy) not to release the names (and certainly not photographs) of suspects in a criminal case until the case is actually before a judge or judges. Newspapers will publish stories to the effect that "a Mr. B was detained during the investigation by police and is believed to have knowledge of the crime." Sometimes it isn't even "Mr. B" but just "a Latvian male" or words to that effect. Now, mind you, the reporter writing this story usually knows full well the name of the suspect and knows almost as much about the case as the police. But he or she will write only what is considered fair to all parties concerned.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

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.

Stop accusing me of being dishonest! I am sick of your crap.

When people who are in custody are taken out of a police station jail to be moved to court or a correctional facility there really aren't loading docks or completely hidden entrances. If the media is interested in getting a photo, they will get the photo.

Why on earth do you want all this secrecy? To spare people "embarrassment"? If we are talking about well known people, or people arrested for highly publicized crimes, the public learns the fact of the arrest before they see any photos. So, what difference do the photos make? And "embarrassment" about being photographed is generally the least of those people's worries, since they have already had mug shots taken, but, if they are concerned, they can cover their face and head with a jacket, or something else, before being taken outside, and some people do do that.

Getting arrested isn't a great experience, the person is subjected to a great many indignities, probably the least of which is being photographed.

Sometimes the police and D.A. are justifiably proud of their work in tracking a suspect down and making an arrest, so they will alert the press to a possible photo op of the accused, but at other times the media ferrets out such info on their own. Either way, the public has a right to see the defendant, to see, among other things, whether the police have harmed him/her.

You are also ignoring the fact that everyone arrested is brought into a public courtroom to appear before a judge, and there may well be reporters both inside and outside of that courtroom. There is nothing, thank goodness, secret about any of this. That helps to insure the accused person's legal rights and due process--it can be observed by the public.

Quote:

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.

Everyone under arrest is always in handcuffs when moved from one place to another. This is protect the officers accompanying the person, as well as to protect public safety if the person escapes. So, there is quite good reason for this procedure.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Quote:

In cases where people are wrongly charged, where is their recourse?

If a person is wrongly and maliciously charged, they can sue the municipal agencies involved for damages in civil court.

If the charges were just an honest mistake, or if exculpatory evidence emerges, and they are dropped, this fact also becomes public, and that helps to clear someone's name.

I knew two people who were arrested in separate crimes. I saw both of them of them on the evening news, in handcuffs, being put into a police car. They were both guilty of the crimes for which they were arrested. One went to jail for several years after a trial, the other pled guilty to a lesser charge, received probation, lost his job, but picked up his life and went on without any additional problems due to any of the publicity surrounding his arrest. What problems he did have were due to the fact of his conviction for a crime.

The prosecution still has the burden of proof to substantiate the charges, at every step of the criminal justice process, and they certainly have that burden at trial. Just because someone is arrested doesn't mean that burden has been met, and most people in this country understand that.

John Gotti received loads of publicity whenever he was arrested, but they couldn't always convict him--they called him "The Teflon Don" after three acquittals.

O.J. wasn't convicted at his criminal trial, Casey Anthony wasn't convicted, the actor Robert Burke wasn't convicted. In some of our most highly publicized trials, the defendants have wound up with not guilty verdicts. That tends to argue against jurors being unduly influenced by even a great deal of publicity about a case.

A perp walk shown on TV really doesn't matter in the minds of most people. We're used to seeing that sort of thing in this country quite regularly on the evening news, so we expect it.

If they arrest a public official for violating the law, should they keep that secret too?

3 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

A perp walk shown on TV really doesn't matter in the minds of most people. We're used to seeing that sort of thing in this country quite regularly on the evening news, so we expect it.

that doesn't make it right or good or necessary

it doesn't benefit anyone except the media

~~~

I think a thoughtful American should be chagrined by the existence of the perp walk in America.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

A perp walk shown on TV really doesn't matter in the minds of most people. We're used to seeing that sort of thing in this country, so we expect it.

I totally disagree with you that a perp walk "really doesn't matter in the minds of most people." Most perople I know jump to the inescapable conclusion that this person with his hands behind his back in shackles must be truly dangerous, a criminal. The trial will be an afterthought. (I don't know what people you know, firefly, or what circles you move in, but very little of what you say applies to the run-of-the-mill person on the street.) That's why jury selection is often such a long, drawn-out process. Most people who watch TV news already have their minds made up, having see this kind of exhibition of police power.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Either way, the public has a right to see the defendant

why?

~~~~

Your responses about everyone's right to know everything make me wonder why you don't respond to all of BillRM's questions about you. They're as reasonable as the public's right to know the name and face of everyone who has been charged with a crime.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

(I don't know what people you know, firefly, or what circles you move in, but very little of what you say applies to the run-of-the-mill person on the street.)

this really is becoming evident

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

why?

Because that's the way our system works. I can go down and sit in my county court house and see every defendant brought in and learn that person's name and the charges against him/her. I don't want the police arresting someone in secret.

Among other things, I can observe whether the person was beaten by the police when they are brought into court for arraignment.

3 Replies

@firefly,

I too know of people wrongly charged. In several cases, because of the alleged crime, their lives, reputations and jobs were lost. How is this fair? Lady justice is supposed to be blind. In Canada, you a guilty until proven otherwise. American will say that is the opposite in their country, but is it? When you put a persons name and picture in the paper or on the nightly news, they are guilty in the public's eye. Rarely do these same outlets report with gusto the mistakes or the justice system and/or the absolution of these same charges.
A lie, as they say, can travel round the world before a perp gets a chance to pull up his pants.
Are you saying you know no-one who has been charged incorrectly? Or that, as in the case of Thom Swift, that the public needs to know all his dirty laundry before he has had a chance to represent himself?
You live in a very cold world.

Oh yeah, what good is suing the government after the fact? A couple of dollars, please. The damage has been done and money rarely ever can appease that loss of innocence.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Because you can is not a good answer.

I think you know that.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Your responses about everyone's right to know everything make me wonder why you don't respond to all of BillRM's questions about you. They're as reasonable as the public's right to know the name and face of everyone who has been charged with a crime.

I fail to see the connection between those two things.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Yes, but do you? Seriously?
I doubt it.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Among other things, I can observe whether the person was beaten by the police when they are brought into court for arraignment.

Which tells you...what? If the prisoner has bruises, some potential jurors might interpret that as an indication that this is a violent person who needed to be restrained. That's a red herring, firefly.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

Most perople I know jump to the inescapable conclusion that this person with his hands behind his back in shackles must be truly dangerous, a criminal. The trial will be an afterthought.

But, as I pointed out, that has not been the case in some of our most highly publicized recent trials--O.J., Casey Anthony, Robert Burke, John Gotti--where the jury chose to acquit.

The selection of potential jurors is done very carefully where pre-trial publicity has been an issue.

Most people arrested receive absolutely no publicity about the arrest. They just aren't newsworthy. The media decides, in most instances, what they want to cover in terms of arrests and perp walks.

I'm just not dissatisfied with the way our system operates.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

Which tells you...what? If the prisoner has bruises, some potential jurors might interpret that as an indication that this is a violent person who needed to be restrained. That's a red herring, firefly.

Trials take place quite some time after a perp walk or an initial court appearance.

Jurors aren't dumb--they expect the prosecution to prove their case. At trial, the defendant has the presumption of innocence before the jury.

John Edwards, a former Senator and two time presidential candidate, is currently charged with federal crimes. This has received a good deal of publicity. I do not doubt that he will receive a fair trial. And I do believe the public has the right to know the crimes he has been charged with.

0 Replies

@firefly,

You keep bringing up a handful of unusual very high-profile cases, firefly.

In the case of O.J. Simpson, I fully and firmly believe that it was fear of another race riot (a la l'affaire Rodney King) which caused the jury to vote for acquital. All the evidence -- except for the testimony of that one dumb racist LAPD cop -- was against O.J. It's why, in the subsequent civil wrongful death lawsuit, the plaintiffs prevailed.

I assume, when you refer to Robert Burke, you mean Robert Blake. He was largely acquitted as a matter of sympathy from the jury. Whether or not he actually killed the woman, the evidence against him was certainly there. But it was also clearly demonstrated in courtjust what had led up to these events and, I believe, the jury deided not so much to give him the benefit of the doubt as to broadly hint that it was justifyable homicide.

I, frankly, have no idea what happened in the Casey Anthony trial. I thought from the start that all the evidence was solidly against her. She must have had one helluva good trial lawyer for an attorney.

Gotti? Gimme break. The juries that acquitted him were all either bought or quite strong hints were made that you idn't vote for conviction of a crime lord like that if you valued the lives and well-being of your relatives and small children.

These are all special cases you're talking about.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Why should you have a right to privacy on Able2know?

1 Reply

Public Arrests

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know