Innocent until proven guilty?

Question

In East Tennessee a group of undercover cops started staking out public parks in the area, known to be frequent meeting places for gay men. In a sting operation they waited for men to hit on them, before arresting them. They then publicly outed these men in the local newspaper, showing their photographs, full names, and complete home addresses.

24 hours after this public outing of men who are yet to be convicted, one of the men involved shot and killed himself.

I was wondering what people think of publishing the names, photos, and addresses of people who have not been convicted in a court of law.

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9003260
http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9003241

natefanaro, I understand HOW it works, I'm just asking if it is right. I also wonder if the media would have handled things the same way if it were straight couples caught making out, as opposed to gay encounters. Remember this happened in Bible Belt. Gay people are not exactly accepted in this area.

Answer 1

I don't think the faces should have been published at all. It's not like these people were a threat to children or anything. They were attempting an act with another adult.

The sad truth is that even if these men are found not guilty, there would be no article in the paper proclaiming their innocence. People would just assume they did what their name was plastered all over the paper for. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Answer 2

The job of the police is to bring suspected offenders before the courts, for determination of guilt and setting of a suitable punishment.

They should not be determining guilt. They should only determine if there are reasonable grounds to think that the person being arrested is guilty of an offence.

Are you sure it was the cops who spilled the beans on the gay guys, or did some reporter get hold of the information?

Any officer who leaked information like that to the media should be dismissed.

A sort of similar incident happened in Canada a few years back. A police officer, a Fundamentalist Christian, ran the plate numbers of cars parked outside an abortion clinic, and gave the names of the registered owners to a Pro-Life group. Nobody got threatened or harmed, and the Pro-Life group just wanted to "counsel' the owners, tell them that Jesus loves them, and all that.

I'm a Christian, but I would have fired the cop for doing that.

Answer 3

This is certainly a tragedy. We seem to have this peculiar fascination with gay sex crimes (e.g., Sen. Craig is blasted, but Sen caught with hooker numbers is A-OK).

I think that the guys caught in this sting did more than just hit on other guys...the crime should involve an act in furtherance of an attempt to commit a lewd act (like going into the dark weeds, exposing penis....etc.) That would be the crime, not just hitting on a guy.

I'm assuming there is a civic/law enforcement concern that this is going on in public parks (or public restrooms like in the Craig case). Since public parks are inherently inviting to children....there is a strong enough civic/law enforcement concern to end this practice.

Posting the information is not uncommon (we read blotter reports all the time for all types of crimes before conviction.) Unfortunately, the stigma is greater because of the aforementioned peculiar fascination in the media for this type of matter. This guys suicide would be no less or greater tragedy had they done this article after conviction. It's a sad consequence, but the reality of our times.

Answer 4

Anyone convicted of a crime at or over the age of 18 is subject to the media. (This could differ is some states I guess.) These men are still innocent until proven guilty and the article states "The following individuals were charged:" and not "The following individuals did this:" or "The following individuals are guilty:"

The legal system is required to uphold innocent until proven guilty, not the media. Because of the wording the media is leaving the guilt open to interpretation of the reader. These types of stories generally don't favor the convicted since it makes for better media content.

Answer 5

There are no laws about censoring general adult personal information or reporting a story related to charges that have not gone through the courts. Seriously think about it.... how many times have you seen someone on the news that is on trail for a crime... they havent been convicted yet.

freedom of the press is a wonderful thing

Answer 6

It's done ALL THE TIME----ever hear of the OJ SIMPSON TRIAL (part 1). ... or any other high profile criminal---(Charles Manson, Jeffery Dammer, Lyle and Eric Menendez)--there "crimes" and photos were published WAY before their trials ever began... and, if you get bored one of these nights, turn to your local paper-- in the LOCAL SECTION---most papers have something called POLICE BLOTTER or AROUND TOWN or something for the local news which CONTINUALLY reports on who has been arrested for what---if the person is a prominent member of the community, they even get their MUG SHOT published in the paper and on the local news.... the MOST recent example would be the JENA 6 who haven't gone on trial yet but their names and pictures were published AND some have even made it to TV. where ya been son????

Answer 7

There is nothing wrong with publishing the names of someone who has been arrested. If they are exonerated, the truth will come out.

Answer 8

omg....they shouldnt have done that...the public doesnt have the right to know...not like they going to freaking rape you or something....that sad...the family of the dead person should sue.......and they might not even be sure they're gay...maybe just friendly..

Answer 9

I think the family of the dead man have grounds for a civil suit.