+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Does the public have a right to details of high profile crimes?

  1. #1
    Porosity Caster parzival's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Coast, most likely
    Posts
    502

    Default Does the public have a right to details of high profile crimes?

    Article on this subject, but here's the summary:
    A year ago, 8-year-old Sandra Cantu of Tracy, California, was killed and her body found in a suitcase in a pond. Her neighbor eventually confessed to the murder, and entered a guilty plea this month. She is expected to be sentenced to life without parole in a few weeks.

    During the entire trial, the details of the case - including how the girl died - have been withheld from the public. The judge has ordered that information will be held at least until after sentencing.

    News organizations are fighting the order, claiming that the public should know in advance of the sentencing how the plea deal was made. I've seen other quotes from people in Tracy saying they want to understand "how it happened".

    Naturally the child's family do not want any information released as they feel it will cause them additional suffering.


    I think the approach taken by the judge is fair, since even if it were reported on the public is not going to follow everything that occurred at the trial. However, since this is not always the case, it tends to make us imagine the crime to be worse than it may be. I agree that the public should have access to the information at some point, but I don't see the point in making a spectacle of the courtroom.


    In this or other cases - where should the line be drawn? Should there be continuous coverage during the trial? Do some crimes (say, against children) warrant never releasing the details?

  2. #2
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    A tragic crime in California that I've never heard of. Anyway, I have no specific complaint against a judge deciding to not allow the media access. I'm not sure the media has a leg to stand on really if the judge decides he'd prefer they remain aloof.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    If they're releasing it eventually, it sounds fine to me to hold off until sentencing if the judge wants to for some reason.

  4. #4
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    In theory I think that there is a right to report to the public details of crimes, especially when such details are going to end up becoming important for how the bench interprets the sentencing guidelines for the crime in question. The public does have an interest in making sure that sentencing matches the details of the crime in question.

    Having said that, there's often a voyeuristic fascination with crimes of this nature that I find personally objectionable. I am curious as to why this crime happened, and have yet to hear anything in the media to explain that. The bare bones details hint at an absolute horror for that little girl, and there's a part of me that wants to find some way to make the whole thing make some kind of sense, even if that sense is steeped in irrationality. But, neither my interest in such details, nor the public's interest in the same details, should be allowed to trump the reality of the pain for the family of Sandra Cantu.

    If this case were going to be involving policy issues, affecting more than this single case, I might feel differently. Similarly cases that can have repercussions for greater policy, such as cases involving corruption in public officials, the details may become an important part of the public record. But in general, I think that the standard should be that there is an obligation to prove that the details belong in the public eye, rather than the reverse.

  5. #5
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    The only thing that the media should be allowed to report is that an arrest was made. No name, no pictures, nothing whatsoever that would identify the person arrested. Here's why:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
    Posting his picture, description, etc. deprives him of his 6th Amendment rights. If he's convicted, then they can run amok with it. If he's not, they still can't say anything about it because he is innocent of the charges.
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    The only thing that the media should be allowed to report is that an arrest was made. No name, no pictures, nothing whatsoever that would identify the person arrested. Here's why:


    Posting his picture, description, etc. deprives him of his 6th Amendment rights. If he's convicted, then they can run amok with it. If he's not, they still can't say anything about it because he is innocent of the charges.
    Okay, so aside from the fact that we have centuries of precedent establishing that this is clearly not the correct interpretation of the constitution, since you clearly didn't read the OP, the woman has already pleaded guilty.

  7. #7
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Following along in the same theme, a new piece of legislation being considered in the UK is to prevent the name of anyone accused of rape from being given out in the media. Currently only the person making the accusation is given anonimity.

    What do you think. Will it help or hurt cases if the person cannot be named?

    If given, then at what point should the person lose their anonimity and under what circumstances should the victim lose their anonimity?

    Should the public have a right to know all the details of these cases regardless?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  8. #8
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default

    I'd say it has nothing to do with anyone but those involved.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  9. #9
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Exy View post
    Okay, so aside from the fact that we have centuries of precedent establishing that this is clearly not the correct interpretation of the constitution, since you clearly didn't read the OP, the woman has already pleaded guilty.
    Actually, if you'll go back and read my post with an effort towards comprehension, you'll find that I said, very clearly:

    If he's convicted, then they can run amok with it.
    A guilty plea is a conviction. There is no reason, in this case, to withhold information because of that conviction. What I posted about other cases stands, regardless of what you think. Spreading someone's name, picture and description around after arrest does deprive him of a fair trial.
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    So, then, despite my explaining it, you STILL don't understand that what's under discussion is a person who has pleaded guilty.

    Wow.

  11. #11
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    In my opinion there's a lot of taking in to consideration the discretionary powers of a judge inside his or her courtroom. Pretty much a judge can cut media access whenever and however he wants because to fight him you'd have to go to court and if you have to go to court you have to talk to a judge. A judge that is automatically going to be loath to give up their powers inside a courtroom to decide how best to proceed in trying a case. The system sorta exists and works so that we don't get a say on this one.

    I of course have like zero formal training in law

  12. #12
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Exy View post
    So, then, despite my explaining it, you STILL don't understand that what's under discussion is a person who has pleaded guilty.

    Wow.
    What part of this do you have difficulty understanding?

    A guilty plea is a conviction. There is no reason, in this case, to withhold information because of that conviction.
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    What part of this do you have difficulty understanding?
    Congratulations on finally achieving a post that has to do with the topic of the thread!

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts