hero or villian?

[Mercy]

The initial story (http://www.wftv.com/news/23867458/detail.html) was breaking news around here last Thursday. A 14-year old boy was perp' walked by police in front of gaggle of news cameras, being described as a foiled kidnapper. The story caught my attention because I thought I misheard it was a fourteen-year old in the footage the first time it came up...he's a big boy. So I kept up with the story. Immediate follow-up reports included the boy's name but little has been reported since with a few notable exceptions (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/os-mike-thomas-arrest-follow-061710-20100616,0,3585848.column).

This does not sit right with me starting with parading a minor before news cameras based on an uncertain crime. Normally I am against coddling the kiddies but usually they keep the minors' identities, names and faces, hidden until after there is mugshot goodness. One might also question how all the reporters got there so soon after it all went down but I am willing to let that one slide. Charging him as an adult? A sixteen-year old gets charged as a minor after killing his fifteen-year old girlfriend when she refused to get an abortion but this kid gets charged as an adult for holding a little girl's hand? Mummy is not pressing charges and has since admitted it was all a misunderstanding so why charge him with anything? Or maybe I am just losing my edge and someone else has a good reason why this is not a miscarriage of justice.

-m.

[Orion]

It's all about "trying the case in the press" by getting public perception to go against the boy and contaminating a potential jury pool. Fairly common tactic used by prosecutors.

I learned that watching Boston Legal.

[AtmaWeapon]

I've seen people from a few other countries appalled that we reveal the names of the accused at all. Apparently in some countries the identity of the suspect is withheld and known only to the investigators, the jury, and friends that might notice the suspect was arrested. The identity is not revealed unless they are found guilty of the crime.

I really like that approach. There are several crimes for which the accusation is as damaging to a person's reputation as the conviction. Allowing the media to air someone's dirty laundry just because the police think they might be a suspect is abhorrent; you can't replace a lost reputation. Airing an "oh he's innocent actually" story doesn't clear up all the other things the press tends to like to dig up.

I saw a case a few months ago that's a good example of the danger. An angry ex-husband decided the perfect way to get rid of the new boyfriend. He broke into the family's home while they were sleeping and used their computer to download child pornography. He then took the computer apart, extracted the hard drive, and mailed it to the police with a note indicating who it came from. The man was arrested, publicly accused of owning a computer that was used to download child pornography, and held in jail for a week until police figured out what had happened. You think his friends looked at him the same way the day he came back home? Do you think his relationship with that woman will recover? There's other issues with this particular case, but I think it's relevant to think about how much damage an accusation can really bring with it.

If I were introduced to Richard Jewel, I couldn't help but think, "Oh, the guy accused of the Olympic bombing in Atlanta". I know he was found innocent, but I can't help but remember weeks of media coverage designed to make me believe he was the only logical perpetrator. It's sad.

[jerome]

Between this stuff and angry political agendas, these are the reasons I do not like watching the news.

If it bleeds, it leads. Let's dig up some dirt and make it hurt. We've got ourselves a news show.