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.

I am personally finding myself thinking we (America) would be better off if all criminal investigations were sealed affairs until conclusion.

It is nearly a daily occurrence now that the populace is stirred into a frenzy based on incomplete information about a incident. Videos that only show one perspective or are edited to only show something that in a vacuum is scandalous.

All to often cases that should be confined to the city or county level are made into national affairs.

Would the Governor of FL personally gotten involved into the Casey Anthony case if there was no national public interest?

Would the Baltimore DA have gone after so many of her own LEOs if there were no public outrage?

Can we honestly say the system is not being hindered or influenced by the 24 hour news cycle and social media? Public outcry often based on incomplete facts and context is turning violent. What does that help?

Why not let the system do its job and then evaluate the results and take corrective action if needed afterwards?

Why not let the system do its job

How would you have any idea how it was working if it was all secret? Sunlight is the best disinfectant in these matters.

 Ouze wrote:

Why not let the system do its job

How would you have any idea how it was working if it was all secret? Sunlight is the best disinfectant in these matters.

The investigations would be public after conclusion. Some places habe civilian run police review boards. I think those are a great idea.

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.

No.

There has to be some give-or-take here... such as, an empaneled Grand Jury. That should be a secret until the decision is made.

But, everything else? Within reasons, the process should be transparent.

The logic behind withholding information until after resolution is to prevent trying a case in the court of public opinion and let the system do its job. Sounds good in practice, but can and will of course be perverted. Having the public know everything can result in political pressure, but that could be a positive or negative thing depending on the circumstances. And if too much information is given you risk tainting the jury pool. It's a bad situation either way.

It's not like hiding information makes the court of public opinion go away, you realize.

The media absolutely manipulates and abuses such information, and the 24 hour news cycle absolutely causes many problems. That said, sealed cases are also gigantic magnets for abuse, either for not taking action where it is needed or protecting corrupt or abusive actions under seal. The 24 hour news cycle also does highlight real problems quite often too that would otherwise be swept under the rug and helps keep people honest knowing that a major **** up will end up having consequences very quickly.

 curran12 wrote:
It's not like hiding information makes the court of public opinion go away, you realize.

I do. But like I said in another thread people tend to shoehorn their beliefs into the evidence no matter it what it shows. If a cop shoots someone many have already decided he was in the wrong. Especially if the headline reads "black man shot by police."

 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.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
It's not like hiding information makes the court of public opinion go away, you realize.

I do. But like I said in another thread people tend to shoehorn their beliefs into the evidence no matter it what it shows. If a cop shoots someone many have already decided he was in the wrong. Especially if the headline reads "black man shot by police."

And that will still come out. Unless you are also suggesting that the family of said person should not be informed until the official investigation is over or should be barred from being allowed to tell people that their family member was shot?

 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.

And the bad precincts that happily abuse asset seizures laws to fund themselves, not just bad cops.

And sorry, but their biggest issue is public trust right now. Hiding behind a secret wall where only they can see the information ain't going to win public trust. While I agree that the majority of police are good, the bad ones have been enough to spoil the pot, and that police in general I don't think I can trust.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
It's not like hiding information makes the court of public opinion go away, you realize.

I do. But like I said in another thread people tend to shoehorn their beliefs into the evidence no matter it what it shows. If a cop shoots someone many have already decided he was in the wrong. Especially if the headline reads "black man shot by police."

And that will still come out. Unless you are also suggesting that the family of said person should not be informed until the official investigation is over or should be barred from being allowed to tell people that their family member was shot?

Yep. People will talk. And they'll jump to conclusions. And cops will talk even though they shouldn't. With how fast information gets disseminated you can't keep a lid on anything.

 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.

Even if we accept that as true, the fact that they are so rarely held accountable, and that so many "good officers" often do nothing, and that IA departments are seen most often as an enemy, make the whole system bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

Even if we accept that as true, the fact that they are so rarely held accountable, and that so many "good officers" often do nothing, and that IA departments are seen most often as an enemy, make the whole system bad.

That's a whole lot of conclusions without any data. Source?

Pending criminal investigations are generally subject to some level of protection, but it varies by state as to what and how much is protected. Likewise, courts can always be asked to seal certain records if there is a legitimate reason; this is frequently don in child sex abuse cases to protect the child's identity, for example. But our justice system is ultimately accountable to the public and unilaterally closing off access is undesirable and probably unconstitutional as both law enforcement and the courts are arms of government.

That being said, media sensationalism is often reprehensibly bad about distorting things, but such is the nature of a free media with a populace uninterested in holding them accountable. So long as the public rewards spectacle over truth, spectacle will reign.

The one thing I think should change is that the names of suspects/persons of interest/accused should not be public information. Not that I think it should be actively hidden, but this whole innocent until proven guilty thing seems to run hard and fast into the face of "X has been arrested for the murder of Y and the rape of Z, full story at 12 HE DID IT EVERYONE HE DID IT!"

I think names should be under a "do not publish" order. People should be able to observe and talk about cases, but there's no need to plaster an accused's name on every front page in the country.

 LordofHats wrote:
The one thing I think should change is that the names of suspects/persons of interest/accused should not be public information. Not that I think it should be actively hidden, but this whole innocent until proven guilty thing seems to run hard and fast into the face of "X has been arrested for the murder of Y and the rape of Z, full story at 12 HE DID IT EVERYONE HE DID IT!"

I think names should be under a "do not publish" order. People should be able to observe and talk about cases, but there's no need to plaster an accused's name on every front page in the country.

Maybe it's as simple as that. But you hit the nail on the head. There is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty anymore.

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

 LordofHats wrote:
The one thing I think should change is that the names of suspects/persons of interest/accused should not be public information. Not that I think it should be actively hidden, but this whole innocent until proven guilty thing seems to run hard and fast into the face of "X has been arrested for the murder of Y and the rape of Z, full story at 12 HE DID IT EVERYONE HE DID IT!"

I think names should be under a "do not publish" order. People should be able to observe and talk about cases, but there's no need to plaster an accused's name on every front page in the country.

Agreed. Sure, there's always the option to request a "change of venue" to have the trial held somewhere where the jury pool may not already be tainted by the news of the case, but that really isn't a realistic expectation anymore with the internet and constant 24 hour news cycle.

 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.

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.

 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.

and when has that occured?

Asterios wrote:


and when has that occured?

You first. When has the media demonstrably affected someones right to a fair trial?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and when has that occured?

You first. When has the media demonstrably affected someones right to a fair trial?

take your pick on any of the stories the media has reported on, how is a jury supposed to give anyone a fair trial after all the "facts" (said sarcastically) that the media throws at them upon the arrest and such?

look at the recent Dallas shooting how the news media showed it around, if the shooter survived do you think he would have gotten a fair trial? or would the lynch mob be out after him ? or how about the guy who turned himself in as a person of interest because his photo was shopped around, and yet he was not involved will he now be treated differently?

then in San Diego with the homeless killer, a suspect was arrested the media blitzed his face all over the place and then he was released, do you think people might treat him differently now?

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and when has that occured?

You first. When has the media demonstrably affected someones right to a fair trial?

take your pick on any of the stories the media has reported on, how is a jury supposed to give anyone a fair trial after all the "facts" (said sarcastically) that the media throws at them upon the arrest and such?

look at the recent Dallas shooting how the news media showed it around, if the shooter survived do you think he would have gotten a fair trial? or would the lynch mob be out after him ?

then in San Diego with the homeless killer, a suspect was arrested the media blitzed his face all over the place and then he was released, do you think people might treat him differently now?

So, you don't have any evidence that any of that actually affected a trial as the only two that you've specifically mentioned never went to trial.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and when has that occured?

You first. When has the media demonstrably affected someones right to a fair trial?

take your pick on any of the stories the media has reported on, how is a jury supposed to give anyone a fair trial after all the "facts" (said sarcastically) that the media throws at them upon the arrest and such?

look at the recent Dallas shooting how the news media showed it around, if the shooter survived do you think he would have gotten a fair trial? or would the lynch mob be out after him ?

then in San Diego with the homeless killer, a suspect was arrested the media blitzed his face all over the place and then he was released, do you think people might treat him differently now?

So, you don't have any evidence that any of that actually affected a trial as the only two that you've specifically mentioned never went to trial.

want Actual cases?

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077969,00.html

or how about this?

http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/story/trial-by-media/ (this one has 5 cases that went to trial)

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=popular_media

https://lim.economics.cornell.edu/civilpaper.pdf

If the media actually reported news as if it had a bit of self respect, it should be open to the public. If the main news organizations were actually concerned with reporting the news in the best manner they could, there wouldn't be a problem. If they held themselves to any reasonable standard of reporting, it would result in much less undeserved inflammation (or more inflammation that would actually be deserved.)

The problem is that almost all news in North America is a complete BS joke. You don't get useful facts from them, you don't gain the ability to weigh information and make a decision for yourself, you just get force fed BS continually. The main news channels are a painful experience for me. It's misleading and shameful. They don't care if you're informed and empowered, they care if you watch the bloody news or not.

It causes alot more problems than just public opinion being involved (mistakenly at times) in court trials. It produces a populous that has the wrong idea about alot of things, and no way to know what actually happened. It's dangerous for democratic function and unfair. We deserve real news, not a "report" painted in whatever fashion they want it to be. Scientific, unbiased, informative news.

It also makes me feel like even we as voting citizens in democratic societies have no power whatsoever and are simply being driven like sheep by the government and the 1%, who simply use the news and other things as a method of producing the illusion of an informed and empowered society. I mean... i don't trust that I know what's going on in my country. It isn't being reported to me in a fashion that I find adequate and informative.

The problem is with the media, not with public opinion.

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and when has that occured?

You first. When has the media demonstrably affected someones right to a fair trial?

take your pick on any of the stories the media has reported on, how is a jury supposed to give anyone a fair trial after all the "facts" (said sarcastically) that the media throws at them upon the arrest and such?

look at the recent Dallas shooting how the news media showed it around, if the shooter survived do you think he would have gotten a fair trial? or would the lynch mob be out after him ?

then in San Diego with the homeless killer, a suspect was arrested the media blitzed his face all over the place and then he was released, do you think people might treat him differently now?

So, you don't have any evidence that any of that actually affected a trial as the only two that you've specifically mentioned never went to trial.

want Actual cases?

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077969,00.html

or how about this?

http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/story/trial-by-media/ (this one has 5 cases that went to trial)

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=popular_media

https://lim.economics.cornell.edu/civilpaper.pdf

To take these in order...

The Casey Anthony case was not covered by the media until the trial began.

The Amanda Knox trial was in Italy and therefore outwith the scope of the current discussion, assuming it is about US trials.

The Casy Anthony trial is also included.

The other three trials look like valid examples, but they cover a period of 50 years. Three cases in 50 years isn't a strong pattern.

The College of William & Mary Law School paper is a discussion that doesn't enter into specific cases and doesn't do anything more than express some opinions. The topic isn't prejudice of juries but of judges. That said it is nearly 25 years old and things may have changed since 1992.

The final article is relatively recent and provides statistical information -- unfortunately the tables of statistics are missing -- to support an argument that media coverage does affect damages given by juries in civil cases. However civil cases are not criminal cases, of course, and we cannot assume that a decision about damages is given the same was as a decision about innocence/guilt in a criminal case. For a start, the standards of evidence are very different.

Thus I think we have to say that this selection of references does not convincingly support the proposition of the thread.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and when has that occured?

You first. When has the media demonstrably affected someones right to a fair trial?

take your pick on any of the stories the media has reported on, how is a jury supposed to give anyone a fair trial after all the "facts" (said sarcastically) that the media throws at them upon the arrest and such?

look at the recent Dallas shooting how the news media showed it around, if the shooter survived do you think he would have gotten a fair trial? or would the lynch mob be out after him ?

then in San Diego with the homeless killer, a suspect was arrested the media blitzed his face all over the place and then he was released, do you think people might treat him differently now?

So, you don't have any evidence that any of that actually affected a trial as the only two that you've specifically mentioned never went to trial.

want Actual cases?

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077969,00.html

or how about this?

http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/story/trial-by-media/ (this one has 5 cases that went to trial)

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=popular_media

https://lim.economics.cornell.edu/civilpaper.pdf

To take these in order...

The Casey Anthony case was not covered by the media until the trial began.

The Amanda Knox trial was in Italy and therefore outwith the scope of the current discussion, assuming it is about US trials.

The Casy Anthony trial is also included.

The other three trials look like valid examples, but they cover a period of 50 years. Three cases in 50 years isn't a strong pattern.

The College of William & Mary Law School paper is a discussion that doesn't enter into specific cases and doesn't do anything more than express some opinions. The topic isn't prejudice of juries but of judges. That said it is nearly 25 years old and things may have changed since 1992.

The final article is relatively recent and provides statistical information -- unfortunately the tables of statistics are missing -- to support an argument that media coverage does affect damages given by juries in civil cases. However civil cases are not criminal cases, of course, and we cannot assume that a decision about damages is given the same was as a decision about innocence/guilt in a criminal case. For a start, the standards of evidence are very different.

Thus I think we have to say that this selection of references does not convincingly support the proposition of the thread.

going by the parameters set down (no timeline given, no location given or whether criminal or civil) my examples more then meet with the criteria.

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.