Do you agree with the Perp walk

[Anguille]

Interesting thread. I have not formed an opinion on this issue but reading the intelligent and well spoken responces so far has really got me thinking.

 

[Unkotare]

It doesn't have to be "under cover of darkness" - just not under the glare of a media circus atmosphere. Do it privately, not publicly.

What is gained by a perp walk in front of the cameras? Very little of any substance. What is lost? The presumption of innocence.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned "free press"?

Have you ever had to select a jury in a high profile (i.e., media saturated) case? I have. Very hard to find unbiased jurors when this is the case. In the case I had, 87% of the potential jurors said they felt the defendant was guilty. As it turned out, he wasn't. Where does that leave your "free press" argument? Hint: Left field.

Sometimes, one constitutional freedom has to take a back seat to other, more important constitutional freedoms. Where the rubber meets the road, the presumption of innocence comes before "free press."

That is a dangerous, undemocratic, irresponsible, stupid point of view.

 

[George Costanza]

Did you miss the part where I mentioned "free press"?

Have you ever had to select a jury in a high profile (i.e., media saturated) case? I have. Very hard to find unbiased jurors when this is the case. In the case I had, 87% of the potential jurors said they felt the defendant was guilty. As it turned out, he wasn't. Where does that leave your "free press" argument? Hint: Left field.

Sometimes, one constitutional freedom has to take a back seat to other, more important constitutional freedoms. Where the rubber meets the road, the presumption of innocence comes before "free press."

That is a dangerous, undemocratic, irresponsible, stupid point of view.

Do you agree that sometimes, one constitutional freedom has to take a back seat to some other constitutional freedom? Let me give you an example. I have a right to freedom of speech. I should be able to say anything I want. But I'm not. I cannot libel or slander another citizen and then call it "free speech." Do you agree with that? Or is that a "dangerous, undemocratic, irresponsible, stupid point of view"?

 

[Unkotare]

Have you ever had to select a jury in a high profile (i.e., media saturated) case? I have. Very hard to find unbiased jurors when this is the case. In the case I had, 87% of the potential jurors said they felt the defendant was guilty. As it turned out, he wasn't. Where does that leave your "free press" argument? Hint: Left field.

Sometimes, one constitutional freedom has to take a back seat to other, more important constitutional freedoms. Where the rubber meets the road, the presumption of innocence comes before "free press."

That is a dangerous, undemocratic, irresponsible, stupid point of view.

Do you agree that sometimes, one constitutional freedom has to take a back seat to some other constitutional freedom? Let me give you an example. I have a right to freedom of speech. I should be able to say anything I want. But I'm not. I cannot libel or slander another citizen and then call it "free speech." Do you agree with that? Or is that a "dangerous, undemocratic, irresponsible, stupid point of view"?

That's a terrible example. That is not one right supplanting another, it is merely a limitation on one right. It doesn't prove your point at all.

 

[Dr Grump]

There seems to be this unique situation in the US where famous/nortorious people who are arrested are paraded in front of the media even before they have appeared in court or been found guilty of anything.

Is this a political thing (ie the police chief of DA throwing their weight around)?
A New York thing (if appears that is the only place I've seen it happen)?

The reason I ask, is because a lot of Americans are into personal freedom and due process etc, innocent until proven guilty, yet - and let's not pretend otherwise - this is nothing more than trying to undermine those arrested, or embarrass them.

I ask this because this is what happened to Strauss-Kahn and all charges have been dropped.

Thoughts?

We're also "into" a free press. Would you prefer the accused be spirited away under the cover of darkness?

Yep, until proven guilty - the parade them all you want. What's so free about parading an innocent in front of the press so they can have their pound of flesh and the DA and police dept can showboat? It's pathetic...

 

[Dr Grump]

That is a dangerous, undemocratic, irresponsible, stupid point of view.

Do you agree that sometimes, one constitutional freedom has to take a back seat to some other constitutional freedom? Let me give you an example. I have a right to freedom of speech. I should be able to say anything I want. But I'm not. I cannot libel or slander another citizen and then call it "free speech." Do you agree with that? Or is that a "dangerous, undemocratic, irresponsible, stupid point of view"?

That's a terrible example. That is not one right supplanting another, it is merely a limitation on one right. It doesn't prove your point at all.

So you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. You do realise that they (they being the DA and police) do the walk to try and curry favour with the press and push home their POV (ie the arrested person is guilty). Nothing about rights - it's about politics.I know of no other democratic country that does such a thing. In fact, I think it would taint the jury pool as suggested by George.

 

[California Girl]

Actually, no I don't.

 

[Unkotare]

There seems to be this unique situation in the US where famous/nortorious people who are arrested are paraded in front of the media even before they have appeared in court or been found guilty of anything.

Is this a political thing (ie the police chief of DA throwing their weight around)?
A New York thing (if appears that is the only place I've seen it happen)?

The reason I ask, is because a lot of Americans are into personal freedom and due process etc, innocent until proven guilty, yet - and let's not pretend otherwise - this is nothing more than trying to undermine those arrested, or embarrass them.

I ask this because this is what happened to Strauss-Kahn and all charges have been dropped.

Thoughts?

We're also "into" a free press. Would you prefer the accused be spirited away under the cover of darkness?

Yep, until proven guilty - the parade them all you want. What's so free about parading an innocent in front of the press so they can have their pound of flesh and the DA and police dept can showboat? It's pathetic...

Would you rather people are arrested, tried, and convicted in secret? Under some kind of media blackout censorship? Do you really think that would secure the rights of the accused to a fair trial? Quite the contrary. Your attitude would play right into the hands of a government that wanted to 'disappear' certain 'undesirables.'

 

[Dr Grump]

We're also "into" a free press. Would you prefer the accused be spirited away under the cover of darkness?

Yep, until proven guilty - the parade them all you want. What's so free about parading an innocent in front of the press so they can have their pound of flesh and the DA and police dept can showboat? It's pathetic...

Would you rather people are arrested, tried, and convicted in secret? Under some kind of media blackout censorship? Do you really think that would secure the rights of the accused to a fair trial? Quite the contrary. Your attitude would play right into the hands of a government that wanted to 'disappear' certain 'undesirables.'

I don't really have too much of a problem with somebody being named and what they are being charged with. I have a problem with showboaters. This is not about justice, this is about politics and colouring the public's opinion. When it becomes about the police and DA, and not the justice system, then they've got it arse backwards.

Remember thousands of perps don't go through this - only the famous and notorious. As I said, pathetic...

 

[Unkotare]

As I said, free press.

 

[GWV5903]

There seems to be this unique situation in the US where famous/nortorious people who are arrested are paraded in front of the media even before they have appeared in court or been found guilty of anything.

Is this a political thing (ie the police chief of DA throwing their weight around)?
A New York thing (if appears that is the only place I've seen it happen)?

The reason I ask, is because a lot of Americans are into personal freedom and due process etc, innocent until proven guilty, yet - and let's not pretend otherwise - this is nothing more than trying to undermine those arrested, or embarrass them.

I ask this because this is what happened to Strauss-Kahn and all charges have been dropped.

Thoughts?

Right or Wrong?

It is the price they will pay...

Better question, would they forgo their notoriety / success to avoid it?

In the real world, who cares...

 

[Dr Grump]

As I said, free press.

Who's stopping the press from reporting on it? That's not the point of the OP...

 

[Dr Grump]

There seems to be this unique situation in the US where famous/nortorious people who are arrested are paraded in front of the media even before they have appeared in court or been found guilty of anything.

Is this a political thing (ie the police chief of DA throwing their weight around)?
A New York thing (if appears that is the only place I've seen it happen)?

The reason I ask, is because a lot of Americans are into personal freedom and due process etc, innocent until proven guilty, yet - and let's not pretend otherwise - this is nothing more than trying to undermine those arrested, or embarrass them.

I ask this because this is what happened to Strauss-Kahn and all charges have been dropped.

Thoughts?

Right or Wrong?

It is the price they will pay...

Better question, would they forgo their notoriety / success to avoid it?

In the real world, who cares...

Why should they have to pay any price as far as a perp walk goes?

 

[Unkotare]

As I said, free press.

Who's stopping the press from reporting on it?...

Apparently YOU would.

 

[Dr Grump]

As I said, free press.

Who's stopping the press from reporting on it?...

Apparently YOU would.

Not me....

You are either deliberately not reading what I am saying and therefore a shit stirrer or troll; or you're not the brightest crayon in the box.....

 

[Unkotare]

YOU are not fully considering the consequences of your own position.

 

[Dr Grump]

Um, yeah, it's pretty straight forward..

You are lawyer?

 

[Unkotare]

You are lawyer?

No, are you?