Should arrests be published by the media?

[Jungle Jim]

In the US most local newspapers publish arrest records. What is the basis for doing so? Does this infringe on the right to privacy since the charges have yet to be adjudicated (i.e., innocent until proven guilty)?

 

[theprestige]

In the US most local newspapers publish arrest records. What is the basis for doing so? Does this infringe on the right to privacy since the charges have yet to be adjudicated (i.e., innocent until proven guilty)?

"Innocent until proven guilty" specifies the government's relationship to the accused. It's a restriction on the state's use of force against the accused, that specifies that the state must meet certain strict requirements before it can abridge the accused's freedoms in certain ways.

Society in general--newspapers, corporations, the accused's fellow citizens, etc.--is not bound by the same rules of evidence and court procedure as the government, and may reach its own conclusions about the accused based on whatever methodology it likes.

Of course there are legal boundaries on how you can treat a person, regardless of whether or not you think they're guilty. But reporting on their arrest is usually well within the boundaries.

 

[Dancing David]

In the US most local newspapers publish arrest records. What is the basis for doing so? Does this infringe on the right to privacy since the charges have yet to be adjudicated (i.e., innocent until proven guilty)?

Um, most often crime reports do not mention individual names of arrests, now court reporting suually does, it vaies by paper.

The basis of the report is that it is a matter of public record. Secret arrests are worse?

 

[Crossbow]

In the US most local newspapers publish arrest records. What is the basis for doing so? Does this infringe on the right to privacy since the charges have yet to be adjudicated (i.e., innocent until proven guilty)?

Well, since police work is public service, then the news about arrests should be made public.

And while such news becoming public is often embarrasing for those who are arrested, however this news becoming public also helps to protect them from being abused by the authorities because their detention by authorities is made public.

 

[sarge]

In the US most local newspapers publish arrest records.

Well, some do anyway.

What is the basis for doing so?

An arrest is news.

Does this infringe on the right to privacy since the charges have yet to be adjudicated (i.e., innocent until proven guilty)?

Our Consititution guarantees neither a presumption of innocence nor (directly) a right to privacy. Some other misconceptions about our rights:

1. We have no right to a jury composed of our peers.
2. We have no right to representation if we are taxed.
3. There is no guarantee that our goverment will be "of the people, by the people, and for the people.
4. While the constitution describes several conditions that can not be used to deny you the vote, it does not actually grant an actual right to vote.
5. The Constitution has no expressed view that "all men are created equal".
6.

 

[quarky]

The whole Sandusky/pedophilia story is a bit stunning. I have no idea what actually occurred, but Sandusky claims innocence. God forbid he is actually innocent. He has been condemned. For eternity. Should you venture into the comments on various online news, people want to shoot him on sight.

I would be one of them, of course, if its true, and it was my kid.
However, the journalism has by-passed the justice system, which is problematic.

Perhaps not in Sandusky's case...yet, one must wonder about the power of an unsubstantiated rumor.
A well timed innuendo has the power to un-do a presidential contender.

I have no answer to address this problem, but I recognize its power.

(Newt Gingrich molested me when I was an intern.)

Kidding, of course, to make a point.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Our Consititution guarantees neither a presumption of innocence nor (directly) a right to privacy.

The presumption of innocence logically follows from the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments and was a basic principle in Common Law. It's also part of U.S. case law, and the judiciary is given the authority to interpret the law (including the Constitution) in Article 3. So in a real and meaningful way, the Constitution does in fact guarantee the presumption of innocence.

But this "guarantee" is really only about the burden of evidence and not about public perception. (The overlap being the case law about jury bias--as in the Sam Sheppard case.)

You're correct that there is no right to privacy when the information is that for which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[Almo]

I like the UK's restriction on the press reporting on stuff before the verdict is in. In my opinion, proper justice is just a wee bit above free speech in priority of rights. I know I'm in a pretty small minority on with this in the US, but it's how I feel about it.

I don't think it is just to allow the press to publish "Person X accused of Y", because even if they are found innocent, the accusation may continue to haunt them.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think it is just to allow the press to publish "Person X accused of Y", because even if they are found innocent, the accusation may continue to haunt them.

In court you are found either guilty or not guilty, you are not found innocent.

 

[sarge]

I like the UK's restriction on the press reporting on stuff before the verdict is in. In my opinion, proper justice is just a wee bit above free speech in priority of rights. I know I'm in a pretty small minority on with this in the US, but it's how I feel about it.

I don't think it is just to allow the press to publish "Person X accused of Y", because even if they are found innocent, the accusation may continue to haunt them.

British press does not report on judicial matters until after a verdict is rendered? Surely that is not the case?

 

[theprestige]

I don't think it is just to allow the press to publish "Person X accused of Y", because even if they are found innocent, the accusation may continue to haunt them.

Being "found innocent" in court is not the same thing as actually being innocent. So being haunted by the accusation is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[quarky]

I had a 3-some with Brad and Angelina Jolie.

I couldn't get off, on account of Jolie's swollen lips.
It reminded me of a friend I had, long ago, that came to me in distress, after her boy-friend have given her a fat-lip.

It would have been so wrong to take advantage of the moment, and the fat lip.
And so easy.
But I took the high road.

ever since, I've been able to resist the relentless come-ons from Hollywood starlets with those swollen lips. I don't want to know who punched them in the mouth, or why.

I've never been that desperate.

God bless me.

 

[Robrob]

I had a 3-some with Brad and Angelina Jolie.

I couldn't get off, on account of Jolie's swollen lips.
It reminded me of a friend I had, long ago, that came to me in distress, after her boy-friend have given her a fat-lip.

It would have been so wrong to take advantage of the moment, and the fat lip.
And so easy.
But I took the high road.

ever since, I've been able to resist the relentless come-ons from Hollywood starlets with those swollen lips. I don't want to know who punched them in the mouth, or why.

I've never been that desperate.

God bless me.

Am I the only one confused?

 

[quarky]

Not likely.

Should i translate the point?