[HN Gopher] We're no longer naming suspects in minor crime stories
___________________________________________________________________
We're no longer naming suspects in minor crime stories
Author : anigbrowl
Score : 124 points
Date : 2021-06-15 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.ap.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.ap.org)
| fallingknife wrote:
| So somehow the ethics change based on the severity of the crime
| they are suspected of?
| stevenpetryk wrote:
| The article hints that (ostensibly) the reason the policy only
| applies to minor crimes is that they often do not hear back on
| what happened with minor cases. Presumably, high-profile cases
| will receive lots of follow-up attention, including naming the
| suspects found innocent.
|
| Again, ostensibly.
| wyldfire wrote:
| Nitpick: in most countries, you cannot be 'found' innocent,
| you are presumed to be innocent and can only be found to be
| 'not guilty' or 'guilty.'
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Being found not guilty is being found innocent, since those
| are the same thing.
|
| Having charges dropped is different; there's no finding in
| that case.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > This policy of not identifying suspects by name applies to
| minor crime briefs. We will continue to identify suspects by
| name in stories on significant crimes, such as murder, that
| would merit ongoing news coverage. In these cases, naming a
| suspect may be important for public safety reasons. These
| guidelines also do not include stories about active searches
| for fugitives.
| anikan_vader wrote:
| > we now will no longer name suspects in brief stories about
| minor crimes in which there is little chance AP will provide
| coverage beyond the initial arrest .... We will continue to
| identify suspects by name in stories on significant crimes,
| such as murder, that would merit ongoing news coverage. In
| these cases, naming a suspect may be important for public
| safety reasons. These guidelines also do not include stories
| about active searches for fugitives.
|
| The article suggests major crimes typically receive follow up
| articles, hopefully including whether a suspect was acquitted.
| privong wrote:
| > The article suggests major crimes typically receive follow
| up articles, hopefully including whether a suspect was
| acquitted.
|
| Maybe AP (and news outlets in general) should make a further
| commitment to write a "concluding" story about any crimes
| where they do publish a name, so that there's a news record
| of the outcome with respect to conviction/acquittal.
| [deleted]
| Scoundreller wrote:
| You may notice some publications pick and choose who
| they'll publish names of, and that can be a reason why: if
| they publish the name, it's because they'll be following
| the case and publishing its outcome, while if they don't,
| it's because they don't intend to do so.
| fitblipper wrote:
| Their excuse for this is that more severe crimes are more
| likely to have follow up news articles indicating if the
| suspect was charged, found guilty, whatever.
|
| This change is an important one to make and signals at least a
| recognition of the issues involved and a desire to do better.
| Hopefully the tides continue to shift in this same direction
| and fewer peoples lives will be ruined by their worst decisions
| or by simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
| [deleted]
| handoflixue wrote:
| They explain in the article that such minor stories rarely get
| follow-up, so you'll never hear if they get exonerated / found
| innocent. Whereas if, say, Bill Gates gets arrested, they'll be
| a lot more likely to post updates and further clarifying
| information.
|
| Just from personal intuition, I'd also expect that a lot of
| sources would be name-dropping "Bill Gates got arrested" even
| if the AP tried to keep it quiet, so there's less value.
| mulmen wrote:
| As noted elsewhere, you cannot be "found innocent". The
| accused is _presumed_ to be innocent. They can be _found_
| guilty, subject to some standards based on the circumstances.
|
| This misconception is precisely the reason for this policy
| change.
| kar5pt wrote:
| Hey, some ethics are better than none. I'm desperate for any
| news company to show a sliver of integrity at this point.
| devtul wrote:
| > I'm desperate for any news company
|
| I will never go back being that naive again, there are no
| news of consequence, only propaganda.
| mLuby wrote:
| > We also will stop publishing stories driven mainly by a
| particularly embarrassing mugshot, nor will we publish such
| mugshots solely because of the appearance of the accused.
|
| Bravo!
| luke2m wrote:
| They did? That sounds very unprofessional.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| Welcome to the civilised world, America!
| ottomanbob wrote:
| This generally makes sense to me, but what signifies "significant
| crimes" besides murder, which is mentioned in the article? I had
| a friend who was all over the news after being charged with
| multiple counts of rape and sodomy. He was completely acquitted
| and the case never went to trial. Still, he'll never clear his
| name online. That being said, I'm not saying I know what the
| rules should be.
| beerandt wrote:
| That and the other end of the spectrum, as well. Will they omit
| names from minor stories where a person might have just
| done/said something embarrassing, controversial, or hateful,
| but not illegal. Or possibly illegal, but not
| charged/cited/arrested?
|
| All the recent news stories on various "Karen" interactions
| come to mind.
| busterarm wrote:
| Or, you know, the Covington kids.
| handmodel wrote:
| There definitely seems to be a weird spot where people
| consciously want to give the benefit of the doubt/second
| chance for those who erred and are in the legal system - and
| an opposite reaction where there is no chance for repentance
| if the err was a cultural thing outside the legal system.
| _jal wrote:
| > where there is no chance for repentance if the err was a
| cultural thing outside the legal system
|
| So, two thoughts:
|
| - People react to bad actors exactly because there is no
| other corrective mechanism than shaming.
|
| - I don't know where this notion of "forever pariah" came
| from. Seems to me nearly every high profile case of someone
| being "canceled" is actually a more of an "embarrassed
| pause" - they got called out for being horrible, maybe lost
| their job, and... are back a year or so later.
|
| Where are the hordes of cancelled people who got a life
| sentence? Did we start a Misfit Island they're all banished
| to when I was looking?
| WalterBright wrote:
| There's the stock car driver who got his ride cancelled
| because his father made some bad comments before he was
| born.
| handmodel wrote:
| I know Louie CK is still making money - but I actually
| think he would have been integrated back into media
| better if he got arrested for j _cking off on the street
| in 2017 and did a weekend in prison than the reality of
| him j_ cking off in an apartment in front of particular
| females in the 90s.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| It derives from a different system of who deserves grace
| and forgiveness. It used to be that forgiveness was for
| people who are sorry, but now in some social contexts
| forgiveness is for people who are powerless.
|
| This means that you cannot earn forgiveness through
| contrition, because contrition is no longer the qualifying
| factor.
| mywittyname wrote:
| You can be arrested for a crime that you know nothing
| about. Or even arrested for a thing that wasn't a crime,
| but the police just wanted you to have a bad day, so they
| charged you with something they knew couldn't stick. Yeah,
| that's illegal, but what's anyone going to do about it,
| sue?
|
| But if you said something on twitter, or were caught on
| camera doing something repugnant, there's not really much
| plausible deniability.
|
| When it comes to things like sexual harassment, where
| there's no direct proof, people generally get the benefit
| of the doubt a few dozen times.
| handmodel wrote:
| I'm not even saying the double standard is all bad but I
| really think that is a stretch. Plenty of people have
| been caught in situations on viral videos that were taken
| without their knowledge that show an incident without
| context.
|
| Additionally - the same about police making up incidents
| on a report is the same exact for someone being sued re:
| harassment or whatever. If you are suing for legitimate
| issue X, any lawyer will tell you to play up additional
| incidents that will look bad in the press even if you
| don't have evidence for when it would go to
| arbitration/trial.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _He was completely acquitted and the case never went to
| trial_
|
| Doesn't acquittal require going to trial? Or do you mean the
| charges were dropped before trial?
| Justsignedup wrote:
| I think the problem is that they don't follow up. That's the
| policy that is needed.
| aeternum wrote:
| In that case, shouldn't the policy be to only report on
| convictions?
|
| Even in that case, the internet now never forgets. One small
| mistake when young can impact one's future significantly. The
| memory of humanity of a whole continues to expand
| exponentially. Could lead to some interesting outcomes.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| I don't think that's the answer. People can be wrongfully
| convicted.
| e40 wrote:
| Other countries have laws that prohibit suspects from being
| named. I wish we had those laws because the follow up is never
| going to happen. You can't unring a bell that someone is a
| rapist, when they are found to be innocent or the charges are
| dropped.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _laws that prohibit suspects from being named_
|
| The downside of these laws is, in the case of arrests, it
| makes disappearing people easier.
| maest wrote:
| You mean by the state?
| uuidgen wrote:
| Not really.
|
| If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they
| just won't create arrest records. US police was using
| black-sites where people disappeared without problem.
|
| On the other hand public arrest record put a great
| opportunity for malice and blackmail - do what I want or
| I'll arrest you for allegedly molesting a minor. Charges
| will be dropped but good luck clearing your name ever. Now
| pay up.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear
| they just won 't create arrest records_
|
| Departments routinely doing this get caught. (They have.)
|
| Of course if it's corrupt all the way up you're screwed.
| But the aim is to create grappling points for the Feds
| and state Attorneys General on _e.g._ city cops. Showing
| a pattern of undocumented arrests or of the arrested
| going missing is easier when arrest records are public.
|
| It's a tradeoff between the power of the state over the
| public versus the power of the public over itself.
| joshmn wrote:
| As a former felon, I've learned first-hand the fallout from being
| named in a crime story. A lot of it isn't realized by readers or
| society.
|
| Upon being charged with crimes, I had to make my way through the
| court system. As a consequence of my actions, the courts punished
| me. Once I had showed that I was not a serial offender but
| instead someone who had moments of weakness, lost identity, and
| subsequent poor judgement, the courts let me go.
|
| Once I paid my debts to the court -- figuratively and literally
| -- I was free to live my life without the government watching
| over my shoulder or further being a burden to my future. My
| dealings with them had a fixed amount of time attached to it.
| Once that time limit expired, I was free.
|
| Society was far less kind, and hardly as forgiving.
|
| No, I'm not talking about employment -- I am and always have been
| very gainfully employed. No, I'm not talking about renting an
| apartment, or getting an auto loan, or opening a bank account.
|
| I'm talking about new acquaintances.
|
| As we've seen become regular over the past 5 years, in the minds
| of many, a website is a single source of truth. To a large
| portion of people, simply having a website is enough to give
| confidence that what's written is an authoritative source; only
| correct, completely unbiased, and contains 100% factual sourcing.
|
| When there's a webpage with your dirty laundry on it, it rarely
| gets updated to say "later, Judge Judy found Mr. Bob to be of
| good character, and they've since paid their debts to the court."
|
| No, it just has your absolute worst moment on repeat, leaving out
| all the context and any depth that goes into a legal proceeding.
| It's entirely the worst part of your nightmare.
|
| Getting a call from a partner who is sobbing, "my parents Googled
| you." is absolutely stomach-turning.
|
| See, like all my friends, my partner was very privy to my dirty
| laundry. When they first learned of it they were actually
| surprised. It didn't really bother them, though, they knew who I
| was as a person and that my days of making mistakes were behind
| me.
|
| My partner's parents were, though, obviously less understanding
| because they didn't know me like my partner did. They just saw a
| series of mugshots and some local news articles from mistakes I
| made as a young adult.
|
| It wasn't the first and it wasn't the last time it happened,
| either.
|
| I have always been transparent and forthcoming with mistakes I've
| made. I'm just as candid with friends as I am here on HN. Hell,
| my profile even says I'm a former felon!
|
| One point does not make a pattern. Many minor crime stories are
| just a point. But that point, to those who come across it out of
| curiosity, suspicion, or nosiness, is a lasting scar.
|
| Since my bad decisions, I've had success in contacting the
| original articles of my worst-moment-kept-in-a-non-governmental-
| database asking if they'd consider removing their article. I
| mentioned I had completed probation and was doing something with
| my life, and that the article was hurting me and my relationships
| with people. They obliged.
|
| Edit: This isn't the first time I've mentioned I'm a felon in a
| comment. I've received a surprising number of emails over the
| years from other felons (or felons-to-be) asking "how did you
| reintegrate into society?" or "do you have any advice?". If
| you're one of them and reading this, you're more than welcome
| drop me an email.
| omginternets wrote:
| Please forgive my curiosity, but how do interactions with
| employers usually go? I'm surprised that you seem not to have
| had any major issues with this.
| joshmn wrote:
| When I was a felon, part of it was being selective on my end.
| Now that I'm a misdemeanor, I'm a bit more free since a
| misdemeanor is a lot less marketable. Granted, I was
| advantageous in that my work history was far superior to that
| of my peers.
|
| During my job search, I'd do my best to get the decision-
| maker on a call. This could be a co-founder or eng manager or
| an outsourced recruiter. If there was good rapport and I felt
| like I could be vulnerable to them, I'd mention it like "hey
| by the way, I don't want to waste your time with this... I
| won't be able to pass a background check."
|
| At that point they'd often be surprised and I'd just be
| honest with them with what happened.
|
| I wouldn't bother with sending a resume to an HR rep; they
| see 100s of resumes and if I were to put "hey I'm a felon so
| don't waste your time unless you're chill" on it, I'd get put
| into the pile I wouldn't want to be in. Having an opportunity
| to build a relationship prior to full-disclosure always
| proved to go astonishingly well.
|
| My crimes didn't change anyone's immediate future or harm any
| children; it was white-collar. I'm also fairly articulate. I
| imagine it would have been more difficult if the nature of my
| offenses were different, or if I wasn't as (seemingly)
| intelligible.
| legostormtroopr wrote:
| Ok - I'm curious. What did you do? You said it was "white-
| collar", can you give any further specifics?
| joshmn wrote:
| Circa 2009-2010, 18-year-old-joshmn had unauthorized access
| to a large bank's systems, stole credit card information and
| used it without the authorization of said cardholder(s),
| theft-by-swindle. Lonely-kid-with-computer-but-without-a-
| developed-frontal-lobe mistakes.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| As long as they still continue to name politicians doing
| something illegal or stupid.
| underseacables wrote:
| If it clicks, the media will print. Sounds like the right step
| but I doubt it will hold.
| [deleted]
| koreanguy wrote:
| Why we're no longer naming African American suspects in minor
| crime stories
|
| there you go
| wcarron wrote:
| My interpretation of their intent is they will no longer name
| suspects in "florida man" style stories. Like, really, nobody
| needs to know that it was specifically 30 year old resident
| Pimble McGringleberry who lives on 1234 S Main St, nowheresville,
| arkansas was the lady who was throwing office chairs off the top
| of the target parking structure.
|
| The person is presumably dealing with the aftermath of whatever
| caused them to be in the news in the first place. There is no
| reason to give internet users a rope, or 6 lines by the hand of
| the person to hang them with.
|
| I think this is a positive move and hope to see more of it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-15 23:00 UTC)