Do you agree with the Perp walk

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Apr 4, 2006
31,625
6,434
1,130
From the Back of Beyond
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?
 
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?


It would kind of be a compliment. Who wouldn't want to be famous or notorious?... as opposed to us average shlubs.
 
Was Lee Harvey Oswald the first perp walk?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xU7Lhd7Wwo&feature=related]Lee Harvey Oswald Assassination - YouTube[/ame]
 
Not that I "agree" with such scrutiny but being subject to public scrutiny is NOT the same as being subject to The State.
 
I don't have a problem with public scrutiny. I have a problem with showboating. Suddenly it's not about the crime, but "Hey, look at me" DA's/police being political. Shut up already and get on with the case...
 
I don't even agree with the practice of releasing peoples names who have simply been arrested or charged with a crime.

Unless the state can prove it is in the interest of justice to releasing a name and picture...for example they are looking for witnesses to a crime, or the person is suspected of being involved in other wrongdoing...names and photographs should only be released upon conviction.

Innocent until proved guilty means not having your name dragged through the mud based solely on an arrest...only a conviction.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?


IF the media is given advanced notice that an arrest is going to take place?

THEN the perp walk is a political act.

Yeah, those are WRONG WRONG WRONG.
 
The state wants a big show, so everybody gets the message, we are all subject to the state.

I think it is a combination of several things - public attitude, the media and law enforcement. The public generally believes that anyone who has been arrested is probably guilty. The media knows that the public loves to watch someone who has just been arrested, so they exploit it. Law enforcement knows how the public feels about this and how the media reacts to it, so law enforcement exploits it as well. Why? Because law enforcement "KNOWS" the person they have arrested is guilty, whether he really is or not, and they want a conviction. What better way than to start it off with a public display that says: "We have the guilty person right here. See? It's only a matter of time now . . ."

It all contributes to an atmosphere of guilt which law enforcement hopes will sweep the suspect into prison as quickly as possible.
 
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?

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.
 
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?

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

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."
 

Forum List

Back
Top