Charged!! Guilty Without A Court Date...

Quote: TheCesspit

But it helps the police maintain order (is the usual whine I hear).

I have heard that, too, but it is a poor argument for trying to "officially" (that is, the police or prosecutor doing it) guilty until proven innocent. You can "officially" publish all of it once you have a conviction.

Quote: TheCesspit

I completely agree, and the combination of civil forfeiture and arrest tales in the US makes me wonder at times what went wrong.

I don't understand how they allow civil forfeitures with little recourse--it seems to me the burden should be to prove the item should be forfeited before actual "ownership" changes hands...and seizure should be a serious event requiring an immediate court hearing, at a minimum, to even hold the asset longer than a few minutes.

I don't believe the government's job should be to make policing easier. That way lies madness. I REALLY don't think the police should be in the business (and I mean business) of seizing assets unless directly involved in a crime.

Remember the saying: You may beat the rap, but you will never beat the ride.

The time you lose, the assets you lose, the emotional toll, the financial toll for a half way decent lawyer.... remember many of those being released by dna evidence had confessed revealing details only the perpetrator could have known.

Quote: TheCesspit

I don't believe the government's job should be to make policing easier. That way lies madness. I REALLY don't think the police should be in the business (and I mean business) of seizing assets unless directly involved in a crime.

It is a business and not just a "preventative measure" when they get to keep a portion of the assets that they seize. Those funds should go somewhere that does not help the police or prosecutor at all (if we just have to illegally seize them for some reason) until actual convictions are obtained.

It is my money until you prove it shouldn't be; not the other way around.

Quote: RonC

A kid can accuse and adult teacher of abuse and have a good enough story to get the teacher arrested. The child recants the statement, but the teacher is forever tarnished.

What if the police had a video still of you leaving a building at 8:10 am where a child was assaulted at 0800am, but they don't know who you are, and they have no other good leads.

Is it okay to put out your picture to the news media as a person of interest? I don't know how they could get people to pay much attention if they didn't mention a serious crime was involved.

Maybe as luck would have it this will be one of those cases which becomes really high profile. It's the mayor's 7 year old daughter. Unfortunately for you no other pictures of anyone will turn up.

Do you think you should be protected from public scrutiny?

After you answer that, answer this:

Quote: rxwine

What if the police had a video still of you leaving a building at 8:10 am where a child was assaulted at 0800am, but they don't know who you are, and they have no other good leads.

Is it okay to put out your picture to the news media as a person of interest? I don't know how they could get people to pay much attention if they didn't mention a serious crime was involved.

Maybe as luck would have it this will be one of those cases which becomes really high profile. It's the mayor's 7 year old daughter. Unfortunately for you no other pictures of anyone will turn up.

Do you think you should be protected from public scrutiny?

After you answer that, answer this:

Show Spoiler

Same situation but you are the overwrought parent of the 7 year old who was assaulted. You know the police only have one good lead so far that hasn't been investigated and it is releasing the picture.

I'm not saying there are "never" any reasons to release the photo of a name of a suspect or person of interest; the test should be is the reason for the release to find someone dangerous quickly or to find someone the police can't find by any other means or is it to simply perp walk someone to get their name out in public? Is there anything else, within reasonable constraints, that can be done without the release of information?

There will always be tough cases...but if we make the standard "just publish any name or picture you feel like of someone accused of a crime", we are subtly pushing guilty until proven innocence.

We can play gotcha games all day about what should and shouldn't be publicized, but it clearly isn't necessary for the police force to publish pictures of people already taken into custody when the crime is basically solved and they are not suspected of another crime that is unsolved...publish those pictures after the convictions...

Kobe Bryant was accused of rape - that will follow him forever. However, due to "rape shield laws", we will never see the photo of the accuser.

Quote: aceofspades

Kobe Bryant was accused of rape - that will follow him forever. However, due to "rape shield laws", we will never see the photo of the accuser.

Though the police and prosecutors would never be able to stop a story like that from getting out (the fact Kobe Bryant was accused of rape), my point is that they have a duty to protect his rights as well as those of the victim. They shouldn't actively participate in the publicity with narrow exceptions (as discussed earlier in the thread).

Flagging a person of interest whose whereabouts is unknown is very different from flagging a person who has been arrested but not yet tried. The British Judiciary take it very seriously indeed. After an arrest normally all you here is 'a man is helping police with their inquiries'. There is no reason to report more than after the arrest.

One guy in the UK had his life turned upside down after the papers decided a dead woman's landlord was 'a bit creepy' and therefore must have offed her.

He was a potential suspect, but was quickly ruled out. He successfully sued the media for libel. The media was mostly to blame here, rather than the police. But then the media in the UK can rather ghoulish and fond of dirty laundry scandal (see the Daily Mail and the Sun for prime examples).

Quote: TheCesspit

He was a potential suspect, but was quickly ruled out. He successfully sued the media for libel. The media was mostly to blame here, rather than the police. But then the media in the UK can rather ghoulish and fond of dirty laundry scandal (see the Daily Mail and the Sun for prime examples).

The problem in the United States is that the perp walk and other things, not including the actual search for a suspect where help is needed to find them, are part and parcel of what the police and prosecutors do. If they can walk you in front of the cameras with a pair of handcuffs on, you just don't look like you are getting the presumption of innocence. We have a high standard for an actual court conviction--beyond a reasonable doubt--but no standard for the court of public opinion.

Adrian Peterson's attorney has admitted he used a switch on his child. One grand jury did not find enough evidence to indict him (and the standard for indictment is very low; thus leading someone to say that you could "indict a ham sandwich"). A second grand jury did find enough evidence and returned an indictment. It is a huge national story because he is a star in the NFL. The process of getting to trial has been started and I haven't seen much evidence of the police/prosecutor trying to push the story. It would be hard to stop all publicity on stories with freedom of the press; I just want the police/prosecutor from feeding the fire and trying the case in public.

(As far as Peterson goes, we'll have to see what the evidence shows. It certainly sounds bad enough but I wonder why they could not even get an indictment from the original grand jury. That is why we need the court to sort it out, The authorities, CPS and others in Texas, have been known to make big things out of smaller ones and to ignore large issues...)

I think it is pretty clear what the standard for police/prosecutors pushing the case in the press should be--

--immediate danger to a person or persons and unable to find suspect? Go public.
--Suspect under control and in the process? Present your case in court.
--Suspect convicted? Boast about the conviction and tell everyone you'll go after anyone doing the same thing.

New media? If they libel or slander someone, sue them. Freedom of the press isn't freedom to slander or libel a person.