If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Herald)   Can you believe that Massachusetts court rules do not require criminal defendants to pose nicely for news photographers?   (bostonherald.com) divider line 13
    More: Silly, Courts of Massachusetts, Massachusetts, regulations, wrongful convictions, photographers, Jake Wark, United States House Committee on Homeland Security  
•       •       •

8091 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2013 at 7:02 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-07-02 06:47:44 PM
7 votes:
FTFA: If you are charged with a crime, you are there to face the music.

Um, no. If you are convicted of a crime, you go to your sentencing hearing to "face the music."
2013-07-02 07:08:21 PM
4 votes:
The rampant Bay State practice of letting defendants hide their faces in court is raising outrage among legal experts and victims advocates who say the public has a right to see accused criminals.

I think there might be a relevant word in there somewhere.
2013-07-02 07:30:38 PM
3 votes:
""Nobody coddles their criminals more than Massachusetts," said Laurie Meyers, head of Community Voices, a child protection advocacy group. "If you are charged with a crime, you are there to face the music. ... From the victims' advocacy side of it, hiding someone's identity is another slap in the face of the victim." "

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, YOU VICIOUS, LYNCHMOBBY SLAG!!
2013-07-02 07:10:11 PM
3 votes:
The concepts of public shaming and revenge should be removed from the criminal justice system.

Even the idea that a victim's family should have a front row seat at an execution is disgusting in a modern society.

As timujin said above, the criminal should not be punished before he is found guilty, and even afterwards, he should still be treated with respect. I realize this is very different than what most Americans think, but they are wrong. Americans have reverted to pre-Enlightenment thinking, for the most part.
2013-07-02 07:26:40 PM
2 votes:
The author of this article would have been shot by any of the founding fathers. Not scolded, not reasoned with, but called out for a duel and shot in the chest.

Accused =! Guilty

The public shouldn't even get the names of the accused until the trial's over.
2013-07-02 07:12:00 PM
2 votes:
Apparently some people in Massachusetts aren't buying that whole "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" shiat.  Sure, most of the wankers probably deserve to be flogged repeatedly, but due justice ought to prevail.
2013-07-02 09:58:24 PM
1 votes:

skozlaw: That does seem pretty stupid. Why bother even having them come to court if you're going to let them do that?


They are not brought to court for our convenience, they are brought to court for a fair, public trial.  The public trial is actually for their protection, not ours.  The idea is too many people disappear in countries without public trials.  It's not even in the public's interest to let people waive that right, because it would be too easy for a government to say, 'ah, he waived his right' and disappear someone. 

Let them hide unless there is a public need to have their picture out there, and by public need I don't mean 'hey everyone, let's point and laugh'.  If you need to find out if someone has more victims and showing his face around, you may need to publish pictures, but that should be something the police release, not a guaranteed right of the press.  As long as there is enough 'public' in the trial that the government can't hide arrests, fine.

Now, once someone is convicted, sure, give them a perp walk.  Also, if someone is such a public figure that you have stock photos of them on file, it then becomes a free speech issue.  People are already going to know who O.J. Simpson you announce you've arrested him, so a picture isn't going to add to the shame much, although showing anyone in a orange jumpsuit is kind of a way to imply their guilt.
2013-07-02 07:22:19 PM
1 votes:
... Says some jackass from the Boston Herald, the finest bird cage liner in all of Boston.
2013-07-02 07:13:02 PM
1 votes:
So far every single response in this thread has been sensible and well-considered.

Who are you, and what have you done with my Fark?
2013-07-02 07:12:55 PM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: The concepts of public shaming and revenge should be removed from the criminal justice system.

Even the idea that a victim's family should have a front row seat at an execution is disgusting in a modern society.

As timujin said above, the criminal should not be punished before he is found guilty, and even afterwards, he should still be treated with respect. I realize this is very different than what most Americans think, but they are wrong. Americans have reverted to pre-Enlightenment thinking, for the most part.


Agreed.  Once they serve their sentence, they should return to being regular citizens, with all the rights that it entails.
2013-07-02 07:12:19 PM
1 votes:
Just for clarification, what I was saying about mugshots was that there is a way to put a photo of the accused (and there is a reason to do that such as other victims can come forward and say that they too were wronged).   But mister newspaper editor wants to splash the accused across the top of the page in their jumpsuit to sell papers.

/works at a paper
//we only run mugshots
///don't want to give criminals (or accused) any more space than have to.
2013-07-02 07:10:27 PM
1 votes:
The old guilty until proven innocent approach.
2013-07-02 07:06:30 PM
1 votes:
Umm, that's what mugshots are for, they can't hide from mugshots.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report