Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Considering the topic is "Should criminal investigadtions be sealed (non-public) until conclusion?" I think the assumption that we were talking about criminal cases was obvious.

ok so one article, but then it brings up should civil cases also be removed? or should they also be included in the conversation?

but still some criminal cases were presented, so what it comes down to is your turn.

I think it's important to keep a separation between criminal cases, in which someone might be on trial for their life, and civil damages cases, in which some big corporation's insurance company might be stuck with a larger than expected bill to appeal.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's important to keep a separation between criminal cases, in which someone might be on trial for their life, and civil damages cases, in which some big corporation's insurance company might be stuck with a larger than expected bill to appeal.

but not all Civil cases are about insurance companies either, some civil cases can effect peoples lively hoods and way of living almost as much as criminal cases in some aspects.

Even so, it's wise to keep the two types of cases separate because various procedures especially the standard of evidence are different.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Even so, it's wise to keep the two types of cases separate because various procedures especially the standard of evidence are different.

well of course in a criminal case the prosecution has to give the defense all of the evidence they have on the case, while in a civil case its a go find it yourself approach, but my point is media attention does not only effect criminal cases but even civil cases alike.

but as to media attention in criminal cases or potential cases look at the recent cop shootings say like in Fergusen, the media was already convicting the officer and yet the grand jury found no reason to indict, or in the Minnesota shooting, once again social media in this instance has already convicted the cop, even though no evidence has been brought forth for either side.

The thing is, your examples don't prove anything.

We can't assume that jurors behave in the same way in criminal as in civil cases.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The thing is, your examples don't prove anything.

We can't assume that jurors behave in the same way in criminal as in civil cases.

jurors could be influenced whether criminal or civil by the media, especially when the media does its polls of do you think so and so is guilty? look at Gary Condit even though never charged he was found guilty in the eyes of the media, even though the alleged real killer was found later, if he had gone to court you don't think he would have been found guilty ?

The links you posted don't prove anything.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The links you posted don't prove anything.

and yet this one did, you just won't admit it cause I posted it.

http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/story/trial-by-media/

the issue is I didn't need to present such info since I asked a poster if he had evidence to back up a blanket statement he made.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK has a very similar court system to the USA, not surprisingly since yours descended from ours.

One of the main differences is that in the UK, ongoing investigations are supposed to be "sub judice" until the evidence starts to be produced in court. This means there should be no reporting of the sort we see all the time in US cases. UK news are supposed to give only the bare facts of a case.

The intention of this rule is to prevent prejudicing potential jurors before a trial. It is expected that the trial reveals the facts, which are considered by the jury, and court reporters also bring them to the attention of the public as a whole. (Justice must be seen to be done.)

Naturally when cases are of great public interest there tends to be a lot of press attention before a trial. Examples such as the Milly Dowler case show how the retention or publication of prejudicial material can affect trials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler

ugh have to agree with you, the case facts should not be released until the trial so as to not bias the jury. its why when the news sticks it nose into a case it makes it impossible for the accused to get a fair trial and causing a change of venue request being put in.

Except for other times where it is only due to the media sticking its nose in that the accused can receive a fair trial by highlighting problems in the investigations and attempted cover ups by departments.

too which he has yet to show his evidence when requested.

For the media uncovering cover ups, I think the most famous is probably Watergate. There's also the My Lai massacre. Media coverage also contributed to bringing down McCarthy.

For highlighting issues in investigations and trials, Making a Murderer did quite well in that regard such as highlighting the unfair use of the media by the prosecution, such as the public reveal of the Dassey confession which was then not even introduced in court as evidence against Avery and so his defence counsel could not refute it, despite it having been broadcast for all to see and hear.

I dunno. On the one hand I don't like folks getting dragged through the mud forever if it turns out they didn't do anything. On the other hand I really dislike the idea of secret of courts that decide things outside the public eye. I don't know if there are any great solutions. I think we should just hope a supreme super-being of perfect justice decesends from the heavens to give us magically infallible judgement on all accusations. That way we don't have to think about something as hard and complex as this issue.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The links you posted don't prove anything.

and yet this one did, you just won't admit it cause I posted it.

http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/story/trial-by-media/

the issue is I didn't need to present such info since I asked a poster if he had evidence to back up a blanket statement he made.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK has a very similar court system to the USA, not surprisingly since yours descended from ours.

One of the main differences is that in the UK, ongoing investigations are supposed to be "sub judice" until the evidence starts to be produced in court. This means there should be no reporting of the sort we see all the time in US cases. UK news are supposed to give only the bare facts of a case.

The intention of this rule is to prevent prejudicing potential jurors before a trial. It is expected that the trial reveals the facts, which are considered by the jury, and court reporters also bring them to the attention of the public as a whole. (Justice must be seen to be done.)

Naturally when cases are of great public interest there tends to be a lot of press attention before a trial. Examples such as the Milly Dowler case show how the retention or publication of prejudicial material can affect trials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler

ugh have to agree with you, the case facts should not be released until the trial so as to not bias the jury. its why when the news sticks it nose into a case it makes it impossible for the accused to get a fair trial and causing a change of venue request being put in.

Except for other times where it is only due to the media sticking its nose in that the accused can receive a fair trial by highlighting problems in the investigations and attempted cover ups by departments.

too which he has yet to show his evidence when requested.

No, the issue is that three of your four links area basically spam and the fourth isn't much use in supporting your point.

 SickSix wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Considering the 'system' protects bad cops who commit crimes, and has been already shown to be a tool used by police organizations for anything but fair justice, hell no. They don't need another layer of secrecy to hide from public scrutiny.

You realize that these bad cops make up a tiny percentage of the total right?

You need to get rid of that broad brush.

That's an empirical question, and there is plenty of evidence that suggests the opposite - that abuses are ubiquitous, and even the "good" cops cover for the bad ones due to social pressure.

There is clearly a role for the media in reporting on all matters of public interest, including criminal investigations. And it really doesn't help anything to bring an investigation behind closed doors and just tell people that things are proceeding in private. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.

We certainly should do a better job of respecting the privacy of people caught up in investigations. Publishing mug shots and having perp walks and the like is a really terrible practice.

And similarly I think we need to demand more of the media and their reporting. Too many half truths and outright nonsense dominate too many trials. But even that probably isn't enough, because so much of this plays out in social media these days, and most of the content is produced by activists, not journalists.

 SickSix wrote:
You realize that these bad cops make up a tiny percentage of the total right?

I don't think it helps much to break this down in to 'good cops' and 'bad cops'. It just isn't as simple as that. A much bigger part of the problem comes from cops with good intentions who are brought in to problematic policing cultures who are then given limited or poor training, than comes from 'bad cops' who just decide to do the wrong thing.

I am not advocating for Trials to be secret. Only the investigations leading to charges (or not). I also mentioned the civilian boards that review Police actions.

There has to be a better way to protect the accused/victims/suspects while still providing checks on the police.

And it's obvious we can't trust the media to fix themselves as it's getting progressively worse not better.

 SickSix wrote:
I am not advocating for Trials to be secret. Only the investigations leading to charges (or not).

In my experience, the police rarely make public information on active investigations unless they are looking for someone they can't find or suchlike... so what precisely do you mean?

The title of the thread is "Should criminal investigations be sealed until conviction/acquittal". I'm not sure how you have a trial that isn't secret, but that also is sealed until conviction or acquittal. Can you explain that?