As a former felon, I've learned first-hand the fallout from being named in crime stories. The AP has it right in that a lot of it isn't realized by readers or society.
Upon being charged with crimes, I had to make my way through the court system. As a consequence of my actions, the courts punished me. Once I had showed that I was not a serial offender but instead someone who had moments of weakness, lost identity, and subsequently poor judgement, the courts let me go.
Once I paid my debts to the court — figuratively and literally — I was free to live my life without the government watching over my shoulder or further being a burden to my future. My dealings with them had a fixed amount of time attached to it. Once that time limit expired, I was free.
Society was far less kind, and hardly as forgiving.
No, I'm not talking about employment — I am and always have been very gainfully employed. No, I'm not talking about renting an apartment, or getting a loan, or opening a bank account.
I'm talking about new acquaintances.
As we have seen over the past 5 years, in the minds of many a website is a single source of truth. To a large number of people, simply having a website is enough to give confidence to the reader that what's written is an absolute and authoritative source. It is only correct, completely unbiased, and contains 100% factual sourcing.
When there's a webpage with dirty laundry on it, it rarely gets updated to say "later, Judge Judy found suspect to be of good character, and they've since paid their debts to the court."
No, it just has absolute worst moment on repeat, leaving out all the context and any depth that goes into a legal proceeding. It's entirely the worst part of a nightmare.
I've personally had a number of articles written in addition to a 15-second segment on the local evening news. Getting a call from a partner who is sobbing, "my parents Googled you." is absolutely stomach-turning. Knowing my little sister had to go to school the day after the clip played next day was something I am more ashamed about than I can put into words. Thankfully she was too young for a cell phone and social media was still in its infancy.
My partner very privy to my dirty laundry. When they first learned of it they were actually surprised. It didn't bother them though as they knew who I was as a person and that my days of making mistakes were behind me.
Their parents were less understanding. They didn't know me like my partner did. They just saw a series of mugshots and some local news articles from mistakes I made as a young adult.
It wasn't the first and it wasn't the last time it happened, either.
I have always been transparent and forthcoming with mistakes I've made. I'm just as candid with friends as I am here on HN. Hell, my profile even says I'm a former felon!
One point does not make a pattern. Many minor crime stories are just a point. That point, on the internet, is a scar, and those who come across them out of curiosity, suspicion, or nosiness re-open the wound.
Since my bad decisions, I've had success in contacting the authors of the articles highlighting my worst-moment-kept-in-a-non-governmental-database asking if they'd consider removing their article. I mentioned I had completed probation and was doing something with my life, and that the article was hurting me and my relationships with people. They obliged.
Edit: This isn't the first time I've mentioned I'm a felon in a comment. I've received a surprising number of emails over the years from other felons (or felons-to-be) asking "how did you reintegrate into society?" or "do you have any advice?". If you're one of them and reading this, you're more than welcome drop me an email.
Reading down below, it sounds like your crime didn’t really have individual victims. It cost all of us a little something in higher prices or fees or similar. In a case like that, I think it’s a lot easier to say that we as a society should forgive and forget.
There is another side of the coin. Having worked with some crime victims, there are a lot of crimes out there where it’s not just some diffuse, whole society damage. Everyone thinks of the big ones—homicides and rape—and yes, of course, those are the worst. But even “just” home burglary can leave people never feeling safe in their homes for the rest of their lives.
In cases where the victim never gets to move on with his or her life how much should we work towards making sure the victimizer can?
Punishing felons is not going to directly make people feel safe. At best it serves as indirect deterrence for future crimes.
But much more effective ways of deterring crime are 1) pre-crime deterrence, like cctv, police patrol, etc; and 2) not letting crimes get away, and recidivism.
Yep. There's usually 3 goals of any criminal justice system:
- Punishment (criminals should be made to suffer)
- Deterrence (we want to discourage crime in society)
- Rehabilitation (Criminals are also citizens. Ideally they can become a contributing member of society, instead of wasting away in prison as a burden on everyone)
Any intervention should be assessed based on these criteria. For example, increasing prison sentences might be beneficial for punishment, have no impact on deterrence (most criminals assume they won't get caught) and in the US system, make rehabilitation harder.
And this is a theme. In general, the US on the whole seems to be strangely obsessed with punishment as the primary goal of its criminal justice system, compared to the systems in other countries. (Eg Norway - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNpehw-Yjvs ). The result is prison system which has one of the world's highest recidivism rates and more inmates per capita than any other country in the world. (With a corresponding financial cost to the taxpayer). Interventions which decrease the capacity for criminals to be rehabilitated make this obviously worse - For example, having news articles about the perpetrator online, forever.
Here in Australia the media isn't allowed to identify criminal defendants in most cases, which is as it should be. This also decreases crime - eg, the NZ shooter a few years ago was never named so he couldn't be painted as a hero, and to avoid copy-cat incidents.
Flogging sounds barbaric, but I bet lots of criminals would rather be flogged than suffer the dehumanizing system y'all have right now. (And if they wouldn't, you could flog them harder without also getting in the way of rehabilitation). Having a perminant cloud over your head when you look for housing or when you meet a new partner sounds simply inhumane.
There has to be some punishment for most crimes for a which is enough, after which the perpetrator deserves a truly fresh start. If you don't believe that, maybe the monster is you.
While NZ’s leadership choose not to name the shooter in their public statements, the name of the NZ shooter is well known. It is right there at the top of the Wikipedia article on the incident, and many non-NZ newspapers choose to name him.
Not quite. At that point a panel will review if he's a danger to society. If they decide he is he stays in prison for five years, then comes before them again. There is no limit on the number of five year extensions, so he will remain in prison for the rest of his life if the board thinks he remains a risk to society.
The order in which you name those three items is weird.
The main goal is rehabilitation, and, to a certain extent, deterrence.
Punishment was a goal a medieval ages, and, though it still it in some countries in modern times, it's still a medieval practice. You want to _educate_ those who do wrong so that they do better (e.g.: rehabilitation).
Plenty of people want criminals to suffer. Eg, from earlier in this thread:
> In cases where the victim never gets to move on with his or her life how much should we work towards making sure the victimizer can?
Ie, “the perpetrator should suffer at least as much as the victim”. I’m sympathetic to the argument that this is medieval and not aligned with humanist ethics. But plenty of people, at least in the US obviously think this way.
I know I shouldn't read reddit comments, but I always find it alarming how many people want to throw people in jail immediately for any minor infraction.
Firstly: I don’t see punishment as separate from deterrence. If a different deterrence strategy works better, it should be used preferentially.
Secondly: This doesn’t capture the need to remove people incapable of integrating with society. Rehabilitation does not capture the reality of the situation. US jails contain many people that do not have the mental faculties to resist overt victimization of vulnerable people. There may also be thoughtful people mixed in, but these groups are nothing alike.
It should not be different, but it is. Strictness of punishment does not directly correlate to deterrence. However, laypeople don't know or care; they want their pound of flesh. The GP's list is very much laid out in priority order according to practical American policy, although it misses 0) profit for private prison operators.
Yep. My understanding is that the strictness of penalties has almost no bearing on the murder rate. Most murders are either crimes of passion, or committed with the assumption the perp will never being caught. Murderers aren't thinking - "Hm, 20 years of prison I could handle but 25 years is too much. I suppose I won't murder my wife when I find her in bed with another man."
Increasing the penalties for murder is an extremely ineffective way to reduce the murder rate.
>Firstly: I don’t see punishment as separate from deterrence.
I think the simplest way to see the difference between punishment and deterrence is in nature.
We learn not to touch a hot stove by getting our hand burnt. It's usually not very painful, but because it happens immediately and every single time we quickly figure out that touching a hot anything is a bad idea. This creates deterrence without a heavy punishment.
Sometimes a heavy punishment can also cause deference by itself though. Eg messing around with mains electricity. You probably won't get shocked if you're careful, but if you do then the damage can be very severe.
As a victim/survivor/whatever of several violent crimes, I would rather it never happened. Whatever broken system we had in place that created people so desperate that they had to harm people appears the problem.
If the people aren't causing problems for anyone else, more power to them. The only thing society owes me is that someone else should not have to deal with the shit I had to go through.
Watching this show about the FBI profilers on Netflix qualifies me to respond here :-)
In a sense even the serial killer can be seen/understood as a victim of the society. What made him into what he is is the unwanted part of the society.
I still see the crime as his doing/fault though.
Let me spin your question back at you: Do you not acknowledge that yes, many (not all) crimes are committed as a result of desperation, addiction, or otherwise poor community conditions that could be prevented by better social services?
Determinism has some thorny philosophical issues. Couldn’t we just as easily say that right wing voters that don’t want to provide better social services are that way because of their upbringing and societal conditions? Soon we have nothing left to talk about because everything is inevitable.
You didn't answer the question, and I don't think it's that thorny. I'll get back to your question after you provide a direct response to mine.
Edit, in case you got upset: Philosophy is important and well and good, but it is a game too often played by online trolls to ask questions, and never answer those posed to them. So when I ask a direct question and you throw back a counter, and then change the subject to the philosophy, I have to wonder if you really had any interest in debate in the first place.
I tend to think that in most cases, in the US, there’s a mix of poor character / ethics / whatever-you-want-to-call-it and circumstances that lead to people committing crimes. I think it’s rare that it’s entirely society’s fault (accepting that framing for the sake of the discussion).
Maybe unpopular, but I don’t think the victim’s pain and suffering should be relevant in determination of guilt, sentencing, or reintegration, just as a victim’s resiliency is obviously not. The important thing is the demonstrated intent and willingness to do harm, or inability to control their harmful behavior, because that is what we can expect more of.
The actual pain should not be an influence, yes. The 'usual' influence, however, should be, as it's directly related to the willingness to cause harm (imo).
Sure, but there are many popular cases where the courtroom was used as a sympathy circus to establish both guilt and impact. It should be against jurisprudence to allow this.
Of course it's awful if a victim is scarred for life due to a crime. But how does society (or the victim) benefit from making sure the criminal is also scarred for life?
How does society benefit? Society benefits if those who haven't yet scarred victims for life decide not to do so because they themselves might suffer like their intended victims.
That is the "deterrence" wing of the list above. Shouldn't that primarily be the job of the criminal justice system? If someone is free after a punishment, and seems repentant, do you think it is the job of uninformed/half-informed citizens reading a local police blotter from 10 years ago to shame someone for their past?
I don’t say necessarily that we need to make sure the criminal is scarred for life, but what time, money, and attention is going into rehabilitating victims of crime?
Depends on the goal, are we trying to make sure their life is worse than the victims to it's own end or are we trying to optimize the outcome for society by preventing future damage and removing as much as we can? If the latter then the inability to negate the effects on the victim alone probably isn't the driving factor on how we create the optimal outcome for society. Especially for crimes where a permanent separation of the criminal from society (e.g. death or imprisonment for the rest of their life) is deemed excessive or too expensive and recidivism can result in more damage than the initial crime if the goal is to expressly ignore integrating them back into society.
Thanks for the insight, that was very well written and you've actually changed my opinion on this. Previously I would have been all in favour of long-lasting public criminal records, but it's quite clear how they fail to adequately capture the larger story, or account for redemption of any kind.
There are some really damaging cases, like an 18-year-old having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend and the girlfriend's father insists on pressing charges. Now the kid is not only labeled a sex offender for life, but his listing says victim was a minor. Our whole approach to criminal "justice" is deeply flawed. Recommended reading: Are Prisons Obsolete by Angela Y. Davis: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583225811/donhosek
Yes, there's been a few of those cases - absolutely ridiculous. I think there was legislative change around that (maybe in Aus?) whereby if both participants are under-age or close to under-age, they don't record convictions.
I think one problem with nation-wide media, accessible media, is that all the minutia is available to everyone everywhere.
It used to be if someone was a burglar and was caught and tried and convicted, the local paper might have a story in the blotter about it. Local people might know about it but most people would forget about it over time.
But today, that little mistake someone made when 18 follows them forever with a digital trail so not only do the locals remember and never "forget" but everyone everywhere knows and "remembers" forever.
I think one thought is to have different classes of sites that must abide by different rules. Sites like Wikipedia and other sites that don't contain personal information can have perfect recall all the time.
But I think there is benefit to having social media and news and other such sites with personal information/data there should be a kind of information decay algorithm that slowly but surely starts forgetting these things. Different types of data could have different decay rates, but all should mimic average human recall based on things like graph distance and so on. Archives of these should also decay (obviously official databases might have different rules).
It's probably rather infeasible today, but 10 or 20 years, we could have a GDPR like mechanism to ensure this happens.
The one real answer I see is that reporting itself still needs to be policed. If someone wants to post identifying details about a person that committed a crime then they are also agreeing / required to update that post as time goes on.
Or else. Perhaps some kind of special case libel charge can then apply.
Libel itself is usually argued using the truth as a primary defence. But perhaps there needs to be a variant that includes and allows the updated truth around factors such as time spent / reparations / time elapsed / severity / non-repeat / good behavior etc. A court might then order the removal or apply a penalty for failing to update to reflect that truth. This might improve outcomes for people. Maybe not.
I can easily see how a old web page from twenty years ago could haunt you forever. To take a trivial example: parking or speeding tickets. What if they were permanently published? For everyone. Big ouch. People are wierd enough about misdemeanors to likely knock you back for all sorts of things, let alone car theft or some drugs charge. I wonder how many felony records came out of the drug war? Too many. Felonies around cannabis are certainly questionable now and should have been expunged in most places. (Is it cynical to assume plenty haven't?)
The caveat is that even I can see multiple issues with this: historical records. Old news reports are in themselves part of the historic record. But they are precisely part of the issue. So some obvious tuning is required somehow. I can also see multiple ways the takedown mechanism itself would be abused. DMCA and everything around copyright has shown quite clearly these types of mechanisms can be abused and gamed.
Do you think the reaction would be the same if there was never a story written in a paper or wherever the "crime story" appeared? If someone googled your name, there are a lot of websites that show your personal records (current/past addresses, employment, family members, etc) along with arrest records and for a low low price of $x you can view them. Would they not find that public info eventually?
I think that’s a fair question. To me, any third-party narration is much more haunting than what public records can show. Public records leave room for questions about “what happened” whereas a “crime story” is a story. The story part — someone using their own words to describe an account — is what haunted me personally, and I imagine individuals who are/were a subject of such a publication.
Discoverability matters. Not everyone googling your name is looking for arrest records. Most would just be looking for a little info on who you are. A news story popping on the first page is a much more immediate barrier than a deliberate background search.
Please forgive my curiosity, but how do interactions with employers usually go? I’m surprised that you seem not to have had any major issues with this.
When I was a felon, part of my success was due to good targeting. Now that I'm a misdemeanor(er?), I'm a much more free since a misdemeanor is a lot less marketable. At the time, I had the advantage of a solid work history in comparison to that of my peers.
During my job search, I'd do my best to get the decision-maker on a call. This could be a co-founder or eng manager or an outsourced recruiter. If there was good rapport on the screener, and I felt like I could be vulnerable to them, I'd mention it like "hey by the way, I don't want to waste your time with this... I won't be able to pass a background check."
At that point they'd often be surprised and I'd just be honest with them with what happened. I only remember one time it didn't work out.
I never would bother with sending a resume to HR or an internal recruiter. They see 100s of resumes and if I were to put "hey I'm a felon so don't waste your time unless you're chill" on it, I'd get put into the pile I wouldn't want to be in.
Having an opportunity to build a relationship prior to full-disclosure always proved to go astonishingly well.
My crimes didn't change anyone's immediate future or harm any children; it was white-collar. I'm also fairly articulate. I imagine it would have been more difficult if the nature of my offenses were different, or if I wasn't as (seemingly) intelligible.
This is an extreme understatement. I can practically hear your voice coming through in your writing. When you're done with the rat race you should seriously consider writing, if you enjoy it.
> During my job search, I'd do my best to get the decision-maker on a call. This could be a co-founder or eng manager or an outsourced recruiter. If there was good rapport on the screener, and I felt like I could be vulnerable to them, I'd mention it like "hey by the way, I don't want to waste your time with this... I won't be able to pass a background check."
> ...
> I never would bother with sending a resume to HR or an internal recruiter. They see 100s of resumes and if I were to put "hey I'm a felon so don't waste your time unless you're chill" on it, I'd get put into the pile I wouldn't want to be in.
I'd like to ask how you do this - is it just through friends and networking? I'm not a felon, but I left the workforce for 2 years for no particular reason (I was a bit burnt out, and I had a lot of money in the bank), and when I started looking again, I found it impossible to get past HR. I look like a felon pretty much, and I've come to the conclusion that a guy who doesn't work for 2-3 years whose references are all good looks like he's hiding something. I know that I have better luck with technical people (HR people evaluate what they can evaluate - which is a gap in my employment, not my tech chops.)
How are you getting inside, where people treat you like a person instead of a checklist?
No friends or networking, just doing my own diligence on where I was applying. I would find whoever I could on LinkedIn and discern their email and message them directly, asking for a quick call. Targeting younger and smaller companies helps as they’re often more forgiving to people who can provide value to support their mission.
I’d be happy to provide some specific insight offline. Feel free to reach out via email :) it’s in my profile.
If you're a tech worker, HN Who's Hiring threads often can put you in touch with technical people, particularly at small companies that aren't big enough for a dedicated HR person.
Another strategy to try if you're interested in startups: watch startup funding press releases. After funds are raised, the company is probably going to be hiring. When you see a company that does something cool that your skillset may be suited to, send cold emails to 1-2 people in the company: congratulating them, asking them a question about their business that demonstrate's you're really interested in them specifically, and mention that you may be interested in working there.
I've never gotten a job from this strategy (got hired through a Who's Hiring post), but have ended up having some really interesting conversations and now have a couple companies I consider 'friends' and have enjoyed following their successes.
Hey buddy, long time no talk. I'm glad to hear you're still out there doing well. I still check you out online every once in a while. I'm going to email you tomorrow in case you miss this.
Thanks for such a thoughtful explanation, that is really, really appreciated.
One thing strikes me - did you ever think about changing your name and appearance? Grow a beard, get glasses, wear a hat, etc. etc.?
Or even moving to the other side of the country?
It feels like you might spend the rest of your life dealing with these kind of situations when people "discover" your past.. and maybe it would be easier if you just left it behind?
> did you ever think about changing your name and appearance?
I've actually never gone by my full name as an adult in anything other than formal documents. It never had anything to do with my history as much as it has been a strained relationship with my father whom I don't want to give any (potential) accolades to. Regarding appearance: I don't have the genetics.
I thought about restarting a few times, but I always decided that uprooting myself from my friends and my mom would become an unnecessary hurdle. The mind needs people as much as the body needs food.
As I am today, I'm not so worried about my past. Would I have said this a few years ago? No, absolutely not. But I've since moved on, and those days are far behind me. I don't plan on committing any embarrassing crimes in the immediate future, and I don't have any skeletons in my closet. It's a good feeling.
Circa 2009-2010, 18-year-old-joshmn had unauthorized access to a large bank's systems, stole credit card information and used it without the authorization of said cardholder(s), and committed varying degrees of theft (mostly by swindle). Lonely-kid-with-computer-and-without-a-developed-frontal-lobe mistakes.
From the severity of the reactions you described and the way you talked about it (moment, mistake) I had thought it would be a lower murder or manslaughter charge. I think it's helpful for people to hear the never-ending punishment that a young person gets for nonviolent theft and recalibrate. Thank you for sharing.
That's a particularly bad offense for a software engineer. Wouldn't want to be in a meeting having to explain why I hired them if they mishandled data/access again.
Yeah. I'm sorry your parents didn't know better. I've seen a bunch of young people being given the horrible advice by their parents of talking to the police, which is a huge no-no in the United States.
Yeah, I agree. It's much easier to say now though. I think at the time, I just didn't want my mom to have to deal with any added stress so I went along with it. I accepted (and still accept) what I did. Was it in my best interest to talk? Not necessarily. Am I mad at my mom for it? No, she was just being a mom. A little naive, but still a mom. :)
I made a similar mistake of trusting adults in my life to know what was best for me when I was in highschool and was facing a computer-related misdemeanor. I really knew better, and I should have stuck to my guns. My high school principal invoked in loco parentis and pressured me to tell the officer everything, instead of doing the reasonable thing of calling my parents and letting them make a decision.
At least I was under 18 and the record was expunged. God, I hated school.
>crime TV-loving mother urged me to "cooperate or they're going to throw the book at you!!!"
Your mother definitely wasn't paying attention to those crime shows, because if she had, she would certainly realize that there is literally nothing to be gained by cooperating, and a hell of a lot to lose.
I didn't sell to a guy on craigslist cause he was a felon one time. He included his entire name and I somehow found out where he was coming from. His messages were a little off so I looked him up.
Dozens of batteries, assaults, you name it on the court records. I just ghosted him completey at that point. I thought it was not worth it to even risk.
> I'm not talking about renting an apartment, or getting a loan, or opening a bank account.
> I'm talking about new acquaintances.
I'm under no obligation to deal or acquaint with a proven dishonest criminal. I have no tolerance for criminals. I find those who do often have not been the victim of crime before.
Do you believe people, even young people, are inherently incapable of changing for the better? Is there anything a criminal could do to redeem themselves in your eyes?
Ah, but you immediately assume the crime was a crime of dishonesty, or ?. Are you saying that no matter the crime, regardless its nature, you would reject a person outright?
What about a "criminal" who served time for marijuana related "crimes"?
Are you also saying that a crime committed should equal a lifetime of payment, even after the official debt has been paid to society? That no matter the degree of criminality, the punishment should be eternal?
OP has posted about his crime. He stole and used customer credit cards.
> That no matter the degree of criminality, the punishment should be eternal?
Absolutely not, I think America's justice system is overly punitive. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to give some criminal a job or a loan, now or ever.
I get to decide who I associate with. I'm flattered that you believe I have the power to dictate the direction of a convict's entire life, but I'm afraid that's not the case.
If you are offering some product or service to customers you are not 100% free to decide if the customer deserves your service. Otherwise you could refuse to service black people or gay people or atheists or ex convicts or whatever group gets piled up on by the society at the moment.
Privately you should have the full freedom to choose who you associate with though.
would you vote for/support laws that would extend punishments? you personally don't have the power to 'dictate' on your own, but we all vote in people who nominally represent our views on these sorts of topics.
On a corollary note, Austin recently experienced a mass shooting in a popular Downton area. 14 people were shot. One died. Another is paralyzed. The local paper of record explicitly declined to publish the description of the suspects as released by the police so as to not "perpetuate stereotypes". The question I have is, what is the obligation to report the facts of a story, regardless of consequence? My belief is that reporting should report all the facts and let the chips fall where they may. But I also understand that reasonable people can disagree. (In this case, it seemed unreasonable to me as one shooter was still at large.)
I'm in full agreement, iff it's standardized across the board. But it's very much not. As much as I hate the namesake, Coulter's Law is silly yet sadly mostly correct.
It sounds like the reason was to not perpetuate stereotypes, and in general caucasian people don’t seem to have that stereotype as far as I can tell. Whether they would have posted it or not is unclear, but if their only reason for not posting was as to not perpetuate stereotypes and the offender wasn’t living under that stereotype…
Do other regular black people appreciate when newspapers do this? Anyone with half a brain knows what it means when the newspaper declines to describe a suspect. It seems like it will both not have the intended effect of "not perpetuating stereotypes" and signal to everyone else that black people need special treatment. It seems entirely worse in every respect.
My impression as a black person waiting for the shoe to drop in these delayed ID stories is that the perp turns out to be another black person somewhat less then half the time, and that it's often the case that the police are the ones withholding the identity, not the media.
So I think you're making a leap by assuming that such instances are incontrovertibly based on a supposed intention by the media to treat black suspects with kid gloves. Other than the NYT on a good day, I frankly don't see any evidence that the mainstream media have such charitable intentions toward blacks.
To answer your question directly, if the suspect is going to end up being publicly ID'd, no I don't appreciate coyness, just come out with it. But I agree with the AP that not all stories are worth divulging the name. I had a girlfriend in my teens whose dad was arrested on suspicion of being in a drug ring, and not only did the tabloid get many details wrong, but of course there was no retraction when he was eventually released without charges. That blurb might be on some old microfilm somewhere but in today's world he would be Googleable forever.
Mind you: the situation of the above article is related to minor crimes.
Not mass shootings (a major crime if I ever heard one!). The reason for not naming people in mass shootings is different. Mass shooters want fame, so you deny them fame by not naming them.
Minor criminals have the opposite problem: they can often be rehabilitated back into society after serving their debt to society, but the public shaming of news reports can hamstring them for their entire lives. Entire industries revolve around using SEO tricks to hide people's pasts.
It doesn't have to be that way. If someone is arrested for petty theft, maybe it's ok for the news article to just say "A suspect was arrested". I'm not sure naming them actually helps society at large.
Well, if we go by Twitter, it is a stereotype, though as stereotypes they can be wrong, such as when someone recently on Twitter tweeted before the Id of the perp was made public said, another white male (about a mass shooting). Unfortunately? for her and her retweeters, that ended up being wrong.
Also it's the stereotype for serial killers. So, what, now they can't mention if they guy was white because it's a negative stereotype?
In my opinion—Twitter is not a very accurate gauge on society at large. I'd assume that Twitter has a vocal 10% of users counting as 90% of the content on there. Many of which are quite opinionated...
I'm inclined to think that the way the stereotypes were started and then perpetuated to begin with was they reported the persons color in news stories for decades for everyone who basically wasn't white. Couldn't artificially focusing on any particular group or groups eventually lead to a stereotype if you aren't reporting on the others equally?
The stereotype of the "scary black man" predates cable news reporting. The "savage colored man" predates slavery, and goes back to racist colonists, racist explorers, if not even before that and before that.
It doesn't matter which came first. The point is that the stereotypes are not relevant to today's society no matter how they started.
Well, technically speaking, depending on the exact terms of reference for "mass shooting", white people (... men ... mass shootings by women are rare) are slightly under-represented as mass shooters vs. their proportion of the population.
Are you sure? I looked into this claim last year and it didn't seem to hold up. As far as I can tell, looking at both FBI and wider media stats, each year white individuals (and white males) seem to be the minority of mass shooters. My theory is that people making this claim are confusing the terms "mass shooter" with "school shooter" and the first category is more than 10 times larger than the second category.
As another poster pointed out, as a percentage of the population, white people are slightly underrepresented, but in absolute numbers, they're the clear majority.
Well, there’s this (which is clearly trying to push an agenda but is apparently accurate): http://mass-shootings.info/
But it depends on your definition. Certainly the big, intentional “I’m going to kill everyone and then kill myself,” style shootings largely seem to be done by white men.
I told my wife the other week someone should really start an organization that brings gang members to shooting ranges. If they could actually hit their targets a lot less innocent people would die. We recently had three children in a week or so get shot in Minneapolis, all just bystanders.
No, it doesn't. At least not in this case. Austin is 8% black. So 4% black male. Then you narrow it down by age range, appearance, etc and you now have a very narrow pool. The public deserves to know about a violent, armed murderer in their midst, political correctness be damned.
> explicitly declined to publish the description of the suspects as released by the police so as to not "perpetuate stereotypes"
That rationale is a bit ironic but there's a bit more to it:
The Austin American-Statesman is not including the description as it is too vague at this time to be useful in identifying the shooter and such publication could be harmful in perpetuating stereotypes and potentially put innocent individuals at risk.
The description was, for Austin, sufficiently specific to drastically narrow down the candidate pool of lookalikes. Keep in mind, this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public. At what point do the scales tip in favor of safety and caution over "perpetuating stereotypes"?
> this armed and dangerous mass shooter was still at large amongst the public
And quickly picked up from his summer school class in Kileen.
The phrase mass shooter seems to be a suitcase phrase, a lot of different meanings are packed into the same scary words. Additional information is needed to understand the risk profile. Was the mass shooter on a continuous rampage, or performed a horrific act from which they fled, or periodically performs the same act? It seems in this case there was a mass shooting from which the suspect(s) fled. What is the risk profile to address in such a case and what tradeoffs are socially acceptable and feasible to address the risk?
A-AS made a call to not describe the suspect and also a call to perform some virtue signaling as justification. I think the former is reasonable given the risk profile but the latter is a poor reason outside the specific circumstances.
> The question I have is, what is the obligation to report the facts of a story, regardless of consequence?
None. I don't even know why the news reports shootings at all. If they affect traffic, or the police are searching for witnesses or have drawings or photos of suspects that need to be identified, fine. Crime statistics, and the city's justification of the job they're doing? Fine.
But the leering at victims and the poring over the perpetrator's life is just pornography. Also, unless the failure to convict or the conviction despite mitigating evidence is part of a trend, or an indication of specific corruption - I don't know why it's supposed to be relevant to my life except to make me vote for the politician who assuages my fears of violence.
In this particular case, one of the shooters was still at large. Do you not think the public has a right to information about a dangerous, armed fugitive who may be in their midst? I do.
Take the Boston Marathon bombers. Should the press have remained mum on the identities of the suspects? Now, I'm not saying that these situations are perfectly analogous, but surely you agree that, at some point, the press has an obligation to report imminent danger to the public,no? The question is, where is the line (or is there one at all)? I would argue that the press is duty bound to report just the facts, and all of the facts.
Considering stories about mobs trying to lynch innocent people they thought responsible? That seems like a pretty clear "No, the public definiely does not" to me. After they are convicted, maybe.
The risk of vigilante mobs was not cited by the Austin-American Statesman. Rather, they claimed a risk of "perpetuating stereotypes".
Secondarily, claiming that there is a risk of vigilante mob justice is absurd. If you think I'm wrong, please point me to a credible source which reports on an instance of vigilante mob justice in the United States from the last 30 years.
There are an infinite number of facts. There always is a decision made about which particular facts to include and how to frame them. One can’t simply “report the facts”.
That being said, with difficulty, journalists can make an effort to minimize the amount of “story-telling” that occurs in a news article. I appreciate that the AP seems to be better about this than many other sources.
I don't think journalists have any requirement to publish who the suspects in a case are.
Think about it a moment: A suspect hasn't been convicted of anything. If there are two suspects for the same crime, then one of them is guaranteed to be innocent.
And in the case of mass-shootings, we've seen that the public goes crazy. Wasn't it the boston-marathon bomber that had people performing their own vigilante work and tracking down the wrong person?
Sometimes it's better if the news doesn't get involved in pointing fingers at this stage of the investigation. Let the police do their jobs, and report something only after the police are actually sure they have the person they are accusing of the crime.
I don't think there's obligation to report all the facts. Otherwise you'd be obliged to publish eye color of the perpetrator or his blood type or every other irrelevant detail.
It obvious that reporting will omit some fact, and reporting body is the one what's worth publishing by assesing relevancy and social impact.
Maybe because we have such a skewed media system in the US that facts mean nothing if you can monetize said stereotypes. Honestly, we need to restrict media companies speech somewhat. It's certainly not fair that they can control information on top of allow for whatever libel they want to pass through so long as they add a retraction later.
My interpretation of their intent is they will no longer name suspects in "florida man" style stories. Like, really, nobody needs to know that it was specifically 30 year old resident Pimble McGringleberry who lives on 1234 S Main St, nowheresville, arkansas was the lady who was throwing office chairs off the top of the target parking structure.
The person is presumably dealing with the aftermath of whatever caused them to be in the news in the first place. There is no reason to give internet users a rope, or 6 lines by the hand of the person to hang them with.
I think this is a positive move and hope to see more of it.
I think it's in France where names are not published until after the person has been found guilty. If you're innocent until proven guilty then your name should be withheld until then as well. Imagine the guys who are maliciously fingered for sexual child abuse and end up being entirely cleared but their life is screwed from then on.
> I think it's in France where names are not published until after the person has been found guilty.
Yes, and it just led to french people assuming all petty crimes were committed by people from african/arabic descent. It didn't make French society less racist. And the media almost never follow up on crime anyway, they never publish judgements. It perpetuated stereotypes even more
. And the gag order on the press has been mainly to used to cover up corruption cases related to elected officials, nothing more.
Also it's not uncommon the press publishes the legal immigration status of a suspect or even their country of origin alongside whether the suspect already has a record or not.
In my country, Germany, the media are only allowed to publish the name of a convict in cases of grave crime or when the crime is of special concern to the public. In minor cases the right of personality outweighs the public's right to information.
> Germany’s constitution also guarantees freedom of speech. Both the US and Germany have exceptions.
No it does not.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is absolutely no equivalent to this in the German constitution or anywhere else on the planet, the way it is phrased, applied and uphold by the US supreme court.
The better way to summarise would be to say that the Grundgesetz guarantees the freedom of expressing your opinion and views. It does not protect you when making false claims or lying.
The New Zealand Prime Minister gained (even more) respect from me for this:
“He sought many things from his act of terror but one was notoriety, that is why you will never hear me mention his name,” she said of the gunman. “He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless." -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/19/new-zealand-sh...
She did exactly what he wanted to happen as written in his manifesto, so it doesn't matter that he's nameless.
She gave him everything he wanted, which was more gun control.
For those unaware, the shooter explicitly stated that his goal was to radicalize more people by forcing the government to take their guns. The government complied.
If a terrorist wants you to do what you determine to be the right thing, there is little more you can do except do the right thing, and try not to give them credit encouraging further terrorism. The alternative is known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Who determined it was the right thing? The US has had declining gun homicides for 30+ years despite record breaking gun sales. It's hard to square that with the narrative.
Over the last 30 years, there has been a correlation between increasing gun sales and declining gun homicides in the US.
Additionally, not only are gun homicides down per capita over that time frame, they're down in real numbers.
You can ignore this, and claim it was the right thing anyway, but then it advertises to terrorists that violence is an acceptable way to reach your goals. The terrorist was validated and his agenda was hurriedly rolled out.
I haven't been bought or duped, but I'm capable of reading crime stats and gun sale stats and drawing conclusions from the actual raw data I read.
Gun homicides have declined rapidly over the last 30 years. In the same timeframe, gun sales have rapidly increased (along with ammunition, accessories, etc).
If there's no link between gun sales and gun homicides, but in fact an inverse link, then your argument is on extremely shaky ground.
Have you read any other countries gun crime stats?
Last time a school kid showed up at school armed and killed a bunch of classmates here was, ummm, never? I’m pretty sure?
From outside, it seems like that’s a thing that happens every few weeks there.
Kids in Australia do not do “active shooter drills” in school. My sister was horrified when my nieces came home from school in SF and told her about those.
You have no idea. Influence is subtle, indirect and multifaceted.
If you were born in any other country you'd have exceptionally low probability of holding views on gun control you hold. And even if somehow you managed to acquire those views and hold it it would be almost surely due to USA exporting its culture en masse along with all the dumb parts.
Suicides, accidents, necessity for the police to carry guns everywhere and use them liberally, mass shootings and their cultural impact. 'Everything goes' approach to policing because 'they risk they lives everyday'.
There's a lot of factors to consider to evaluate how dumb idea it is exactly. And what you get in exchange for all that additional risk and harm is just extension of childish or at the latest teenage power fantasy way into the adulthood where it does not belong.
You shouldn't trust cherry-picked statistics no more than you trust politicians you don't agree with.
You should just look at what the civilized world outside of USA is doing and with what results.
You acknowledged the statistic is a correlation earlier. There are also many other correlations with lower gun homicides in the US. The causation is the interesting fact, and harder to determine. The argument that increasing gun sales causes lower gun homicides fails some logic and common sense tests, and would need evidence before anyone takes it seriously. Until then, it is seems more likely that other factors that we do have evidence for (eg. lower lead exposure leading to a drop in violent crime across the board) is causing the lowering of gun homicide in the US, despite the fact that gun sales are increasing.
What he wrote was transparent trolling. Reading his intentions out of his writing is a foolish thing to do. Especially when it results in ascribing to him having such a noble goal as gun control.
I have a different take on this because I think it can prevent people from realising how these actions ended up happening and how to stop them. Here in Norway there are people who refuse to name Anders Breivik, who car bombed Oslo and massacred the attendees of a summer camp, many of them children. The argument is that the focus should be on the victims and certainly we never forget them.
But in ignoring the perpetrator we miss an essential part of the story: many of these people were radicalised within our societies and the pathways and narratives involved in that still exist and are largely unchanged. By refusing to acknowledge the perpetrator we are also refusing to acknowledge the factors that led to them committing their acts and refusing to make widespread societal changes to those. I'm not just talking about laws & government actions, but changing the narratives around the causes and being more aware of how people end up being radicalised into action and how we can all try to prevent that, or spot it earlier. By incorrectly labelling these people as aberrations we can ignore the environment these atrocities occur in and become complacent, then shocked when it happens again.
Also consider that whilst they are not named in the mainstream media, they are named and celebrated in media that aligns with their philosophy or grievance. Those most likely to be inspired by their actions are very likely to hear their names and much more.
Personally, I'm in agreement with you in that idolization and martyr-ization of bad people is a real and serious problem. I can also imagine a dystopian future where such policies are taken too far, where all publicly accessible information looks like: Human #6789 perpetrated the event known as "the bowling green massacre". After conviction by confidential courts the individual has been sentenced to death. Do not question why your neighbor hasn't been seen in 5 weeks, please move along.
Unscientific as it might be, I often wonder if this is a strong cause of the mass shootings in the US.
Yes we have a lot of guns, but that's nothing new. We've had a lot of guns for centuries. And yes, gun crime in the US isn't new either, but the sheer scale of it seems to have grown dramatically in the last few decades.
> the sheer scale of it seems to have grown dramatically in the last few decades.
Do you have a reference for this? Because I suspect it is not true. There was certainly a peak in the early 90s, which is on the outside edge of the "last few decades," but there was also a peak in the 70s.
I'm inclined to think so, at least for the subset of mass shootings that excludes gang/drug/domestic violence.
The contagiousness of suicide is backed up by research, and media coverage is a major risk factor (which even has an impact of the method that copycats use to commit suicide). Even if not all mass shooters are suicidal, intuitively it makes sense that there would be the same sort of viral effect.
You shouldn't ruin people lives just to provide the rest of the world with some morbid entertainment, but this really should extend to homicide as well, at least until someone has been found guilty.
None of these stories are important or 'newsworthy', they are purely entertainment.
"Yesterday 31112 people died of cancer, 9346 people fell and broke something vital, 15012 people poisoned themselves, and a handful of people got shot in a really exciting manner somewhere in central Europe."
Is anyone taking a crack at redundant but relevant "news" like this?
So much of news seems focused on sensationalism. Would be interesting to read a paper that chose stories based on relevance to keeping readers informed, healthy and alive independent of recency:
- Heart Disease continues being the leading cause of death (We interviewed 3 cardiologists and reviewed studies to find what lifestyle changes most reduce this risk)
- US Annual car accidents increase 3% YoY (Talk to civil engineers about where or in what conditions accidents occur most frequently and thus people should be most careful. What other factors make certain people safer drivers than others? What is the relative risk of driving 0, 5, or 10 mph over the speed limit on the highway?)
- America is using more plastic than ever (show breakdowns of how plastic is used, which uses have the worst ecological impact, etc)
Interestingly, a lot of this content could be "re-runs" - take the same article, maybe add updated data if available, and republish it. Cost of producing content could be reduced.
I've been saying this for a while now. We should abolish this weird cultural tradition/expectation/normalization of continuous "news" consumption and replace it with periodical consumption of in-depth reporting on trends, like you said.
People believe following the news keeps them informed even though the news distors their world view because it mostly reports on exceptions to the rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog). "Following the trends" would keep people actually informed as well as provide them with actionable information.
I think the only concern around homicide and "serious" crimes, is that maybe society does have a public interest in knowing who the murderers in society are. Who are the rapists, etc.
I'm not a legal expert, and I don't know what categories of crimes are in the vast public interest to know about, and which are trivialities best left between you and the judge. But I can imagine there is a level of crime which is of the public interest to be aware of.
Maybe the line is if you are convicted of a crime with a high recidivism rate, like Fraud or robbery. Or maybe it's impact based, such as violent crimes. I'm not sure, but I don't think I could see it being in the public interest to never publish any information about any crimes that are done by people in society. I remain open minded to evidence to the contrary, though.
This generally makes sense to me, but what signifies "significant crimes" besides murder, which is mentioned in the article? I had a friend who was all over the news after being charged with multiple counts of rape and sodomy. He was completely acquitted and the case never went to trial. Still, he'll never clear his name online. That being said, I'm not saying I know what the rules should be.
That and the other end of the spectrum, as well. Will they omit names from minor stories where a person might have just done/said something embarrassing, controversial, or hateful, but not illegal. Or possibly illegal, but not charged/cited/arrested?
All the recent news stories on various "Karen" interactions come to mind.
There definitely seems to be a weird spot where people consciously want to give the benefit of the doubt/second chance for those who erred and are in the legal system - and an opposite reaction where there is no chance for repentance if the err was a cultural thing outside the legal system.
> where there is no chance for repentance if the err was a cultural thing outside the legal system
So, two thoughts:
- People react to bad actors exactly because there is no other corrective mechanism than shaming.
- I don't know where this notion of "forever pariah" came from. Seems to me nearly every high profile case of someone being "canceled" is actually a more of an "embarrassed pause" - they got called out for being horrible, maybe lost their job, and... are back a year or so later.
Where are the hordes of cancelled people who got a life sentence? Did we start a Misfit Island they're all banished to when I was looking?
Who? The NASCAR driver Kyle Larson casually called someone the n-word live on stream at the start of the pandemic, and is back driving full-time again now in 2021. He's by far the highest profile case of a "cancellation" in stock car racing, and he is an example of the "temporary, embarrassed hiatus" claim.
That's not a cancelled ride tho? It's admittedly a bit weird, but he's still driving in one of the top flights of American motorsport. He hasn't exactly been removed from the sport, as implied by Walter
I know Louie CK is still making money - but I actually think he would have been integrated back into media better if he got arrested for j^cking off on the street in 2017 and did a weekend in prison than the reality of him j^cking off in an apartment in front of particular females in the 90s.
I feel like this is an exact distillation of what I was referring to when I said there is a preference to help those with legal issues accused of things.
There aren't "hordes" of people who have had their life ruined just because there were AP articles written about minor felonies they were accused of.
I think its fine to either be strict on both or forgiving on both, but something about the internal inconsistency really annoys me.
It derives from a different system of who deserves grace and forgiveness. It used to be that forgiveness was for people who are sorry, but now in some social contexts forgiveness is for people who are powerless.
This means that you cannot earn forgiveness through contrition, because contrition is no longer the qualifying factor.
I think that's the idealized version of what's happening. In reality, one side gets loud 24/7 advocation broadcast nationwide, the other side's advocates are silenced by intimidation.
What you're calling social contexts isn't an organic situation. Society didn't decide the context, so much as the context desired by some has been cherry picked and amplified.
Dissenters are ostracized, then the alternative is proclaimed as what society has decided.
It's the social version of communist "elections," where you can vote for whatever candidate you want, as long as it's a communist one.
You can be arrested for a crime that you know nothing about. Or even arrested for a thing that wasn't a crime, but the police just wanted you to have a bad day, so they charged you with something they knew couldn't stick. Yeah, that's illegal, but what's anyone going to do about it, sue?
But if you said something on twitter, or were caught on camera doing something repugnant, there's not really much plausible deniability.
When it comes to things like sexual harassment, where there's no direct proof, people generally get the benefit of the doubt a few dozen times.
I'm not even saying the double standard is all bad but I really think that is a stretch. Plenty of people have been caught in situations on viral videos that were taken without their knowledge that show an incident without context.
Additionally - everything you could say about police making up incidents on a report is the same for someone being sued re: harassment or whatever. If you are suing for legitimate issue X, any lawyer will tell you to play up additional incidents that will look bad in the press even if you don't have evidence for when it would go to arbitration/trial.
Other countries have laws that prohibit suspects from being named. I wish we had those laws because the follow up is never going to happen. You can't unring a bell that someone is a rapist, when they are found to be innocent or the charges are dropped.
If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they just won't create arrest records. US police was using black-sites where people disappeared without problem.
On the other hand public arrest record put a great opportunity for malice and blackmail - do what I want or I'll arrest you for allegedly molesting a minor. Charges will be dropped but good luck clearing your name ever. Now pay up.
> If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they just won't create arrest records
Departments routinely doing this get caught. (They have.)
Of course if it’s corrupt all the way up you’re screwed. But the aim is to create grappling points for the Feds and state Attorneys General on e.g. city cops. Showing a pattern of undocumented arrests or of the arrested going missing is easier when arrest records are public.
It’s a tradeoff between the power of the state over the public versus the power of the public over itself.
Arrest records are fine as long as the follow-up is located in the same place. Though a voluntary process to expunge records that didn't lead to conviction wouldn't be amiss either.
Companies which are owed mortgage/rent and credit card/cell phone/insurance bills etc. will do their utmost to make sure the person isn't actually disappeared or deceased.
In that case, shouldn't the policy be to only report on convictions?
Even in that case, the internet now never forgets. One small mistake when young can impact one's future significantly. The memory of humanity of a whole continues to expand exponentially. Could lead to some interesting outcomes.
> We also will stop publishing stories driven mainly by a particularly embarrassing mugshot, nor will we publish such mugshots solely because of the appearance of the accused.
Until this confession any accusation that such practices were part of AP report would have been vehemently rejected.
Why is an international wire service even carrying minor crime stories?
The Washington Post doesn't write up anything less than a violent crime. Once a week, the local supplement will have a list of reported crimes, but all you get is the crime (homicide, assault, robbery, theft), the block (3200 block 16th St. NW, say), and the date and approximate time.
The AP isn't the NY Post. I take them at their word that they'll stick to this policy, because they're not sensationalists or click-baiters. The stories they're talking about aren't even news, so they shouldn't pick them up at all, but this is a good initial step. Other platforms will still run the garbage in all its naming-and-shaming glory.
I admit I click on all sorts of "Florida man" stories for a good laugh, but I never care about the perpetrator.
AP made a policy that they would capitalize one race and won't capitalize the other. So putting AP on the moral high ground is silly. They are being run by racists who lack self awareness.
Another related American tradition that I think is really wrong is the "Perp Walk". For the police to purposely work with the media to cause as much public humiliation for a presumed innocent suspect as a form of pre-conviction punishment is really twisted in my opinion.
In Poland media are not allowed to give a full name of the suspect or show the face. They can publish first name and first letter of family name. So they can say John G is suspected of
rape. This ban lasts till the suspect is convicted or cleared of charges.
Sometimes it's a bit funny when suspect is a public person. You wouldn't have a hard time to figure out who Keanu R is, especially with huge media coverage, but in general it's a good rule that protects falsely accused or innocent people being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Imo, name and pictures of someone are a clear cut of intellectual property that belongs to that person and thus distributing such photos is copyright infringement. Well, that would be the case if the intent of IP laws was fairness.
> We also will stop publishing stories driven mainly by a particularly embarrassing mugshot, nor will we publish such mugshots solely because of the appearance of the accused.
Their excuse for this is that more severe crimes are more likely to have follow up news articles indicating if the suspect was charged, found guilty, whatever.
This change is an important one to make and signals at least a recognition of the issues involved and a desire to do better. Hopefully the tides continue to shift in this same direction and fewer peoples lives will be ruined by their worst decisions or by simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
> we now will no longer name suspects in brief stories about minor crimes in which there is little chance AP will provide coverage beyond the initial arrest .... We will continue to identify suspects by name in stories on significant crimes, such as murder, that would merit ongoing news coverage. In these cases, naming a suspect may be important for public safety reasons. These guidelines also do not include stories about active searches for fugitives.
The article suggests major crimes typically receive follow up articles, hopefully including whether a suspect was acquitted.
> The article suggests major crimes typically receive follow up articles, hopefully including whether a suspect was acquitted.
Maybe AP (and news outlets in general) should make a further commitment to write a "concluding" story about any crimes where they do publish a name, so that there's a news record of the outcome with respect to conviction/acquittal.
You may notice some publications pick and choose who they’ll publish names of, and that can be a reason why: if they publish the name, it’s because they’ll be following the case and publishing its outcome, while if they don’t, it’s because they don’t intend to do so.
The article hints that (ostensibly) the reason the policy only applies to minor crimes is that they often do not hear back on what happened with minor cases. Presumably, high-profile cases will receive lots of follow-up attention, including naming the suspects found innocent.
Even without going into nuanced situations, someone can be found criminally not guilty but civilly liable for the exact same actions, because there's enough evidence to say they're probably guilty but also reasonable doubt.
"More than 50% certain of guilt" is not "found innocent".
They explain in the article that such minor stories rarely get follow-up, so you'll never hear if they get exonerated / found innocent. Whereas if, say, Bill Gates gets arrested, they'll be a lot more likely to post updates and further clarifying information.
Just from personal intuition, I'd also expect that a lot of sources would be name-dropping "Bill Gates got arrested" even if the AP tried to keep it quiet, so there's less value.
As noted elsewhere, you cannot be "found innocent". The accused is presumed to be innocent. They can be found guilty, subject to some standards based on the circumstances.
This misconception is precisely the reason for this policy change.
> This policy of not identifying suspects by name applies to minor crime briefs. We will continue to identify suspects by name in stories on significant crimes, such as murder, that would merit ongoing news coverage. In these cases, naming a suspect may be important for public safety reasons. These guidelines also do not include stories about active searches for fugitives.
If that was really the reason, then this policy would be generalized to all topics and all "alleged crimes/allegations". Clearly that's not the reason.
society today is moving more and more to protecting the perpetrators of crimes and away from protecting the victims. this is somehow seen as more humane, because as we all know the perps are the ones who are actually the victims. (not the people the beat or rob, as long as its under 950 its "minor")
Upon being charged with crimes, I had to make my way through the court system. As a consequence of my actions, the courts punished me. Once I had showed that I was not a serial offender but instead someone who had moments of weakness, lost identity, and subsequently poor judgement, the courts let me go.
Once I paid my debts to the court — figuratively and literally — I was free to live my life without the government watching over my shoulder or further being a burden to my future. My dealings with them had a fixed amount of time attached to it. Once that time limit expired, I was free.
Society was far less kind, and hardly as forgiving.
No, I'm not talking about employment — I am and always have been very gainfully employed. No, I'm not talking about renting an apartment, or getting a loan, or opening a bank account.
I'm talking about new acquaintances.
As we have seen over the past 5 years, in the minds of many a website is a single source of truth. To a large number of people, simply having a website is enough to give confidence to the reader that what's written is an absolute and authoritative source. It is only correct, completely unbiased, and contains 100% factual sourcing.
When there's a webpage with dirty laundry on it, it rarely gets updated to say "later, Judge Judy found suspect to be of good character, and they've since paid their debts to the court."
No, it just has absolute worst moment on repeat, leaving out all the context and any depth that goes into a legal proceeding. It's entirely the worst part of a nightmare.
I've personally had a number of articles written in addition to a 15-second segment on the local evening news. Getting a call from a partner who is sobbing, "my parents Googled you." is absolutely stomach-turning. Knowing my little sister had to go to school the day after the clip played next day was something I am more ashamed about than I can put into words. Thankfully she was too young for a cell phone and social media was still in its infancy.
My partner very privy to my dirty laundry. When they first learned of it they were actually surprised. It didn't bother them though as they knew who I was as a person and that my days of making mistakes were behind me.
Their parents were less understanding. They didn't know me like my partner did. They just saw a series of mugshots and some local news articles from mistakes I made as a young adult.
It wasn't the first and it wasn't the last time it happened, either.
I have always been transparent and forthcoming with mistakes I've made. I'm just as candid with friends as I am here on HN. Hell, my profile even says I'm a former felon!
One point does not make a pattern. Many minor crime stories are just a point. That point, on the internet, is a scar, and those who come across them out of curiosity, suspicion, or nosiness re-open the wound.
Since my bad decisions, I've had success in contacting the authors of the articles highlighting my worst-moment-kept-in-a-non-governmental-database asking if they'd consider removing their article. I mentioned I had completed probation and was doing something with my life, and that the article was hurting me and my relationships with people. They obliged.
Edit: This isn't the first time I've mentioned I'm a felon in a comment. I've received a surprising number of emails over the years from other felons (or felons-to-be) asking "how did you reintegrate into society?" or "do you have any advice?". If you're one of them and reading this, you're more than welcome drop me an email.