DU Legal Minds--Need Some Help

Despite being in the publishing business, I'm at the production end, and not well-informed regarding editorial ethics.

My 17-year-old daughter was arrested last week for a misdemeanor offense, along with 2 older boys. Today's paper published an article stating their names, ages, and addresses. While I'm sure this is technically *legal,* it seems awfully unethical and an unnecessary invasion of our privacy.

I wrote to the paper and received a "go fuck yourself" reply to the tune of, "well, if she hadn't committed a crime, her name wouldn't be in the paper." Um, she hasn't been convicted of a damned thing, and I find the sanctimony repugnant in an allegedly professional person who is supposed to maintain a neutral bias.

I cannot understand what can possibly be gained by publishing the name and address of a minor child in the newspaper, except to cause additional distress to the child and other members of the family.

Thoughts?

/off rant, but barely.

I can't remember if it's newspaper policy not to name minors charged with crimes, or if it's local/state law not to release names of minors charged. So you'll want to check on that.

I'm curious as to what the reply actually was.

But public records are public records.

We tend to shy away from things like secret police arrests and detentions.

Running cop reports and reporting on crimes is a pretty important part of a newspaper's job -- and honestly, where much of the best stories come from.

At least in my state, Indiana, and I would guess that is the case everywhere. Juvenile court proceedings are sealed. The police "report" may be a different story, but the charging information and the probable cause affidavit are not public records.

In any case, reputable papers to not publish the names of minors charged with crimes.

I was trying to resolve what I remembered with what might be true for the OP.

Newspapers publish the names of minors charged all the time.

Did the newspaper report any untrue facts?

They published that she was arrested, where, when, and what for. Nothing not factual about it. My objection is that they published her name and address.

Here is the complete text of the reporter's reply:

"It is our editorial policy to use whatever identification an arresting agency provides to us. Some departments only provide a defendant's hometown. Others, including the County Sheriff's Office, which provided this information, give us the defendant's street address and house number. The press release that contained the information was distributed to The News and many other news agencies. I apologize for whatever stress I have caused to you and your family by doing my job. But the simple fact is that had these individuals not participated in these alleged crimes, we would not be having this conversation."

Just because someone gives you the information doesn't mean you have to publish it. There is simply nothing to be gained, and only more harm to be caused.

And I am deeply annoyed at the presumption of guilt in the reporter's last sentence.

(For the record, the "alleged" crime is graffiti. It's not like she's a sexual predator or an axe murderer)

While there can be all sorts of ethical issues or emotional issues, the subject line of the OP gave me the impression you wanted input on legal issues.

There would be a legal issue here if they published an untrue fact and harmed the subject of the publication. If you have a problem with the phrase "untrue fact", the phrase refers to something printed AS a fact, but which is not true. The word "fact" does not implicitly mean "true". It is used to separate things which are factual assertions from things which are opinions. For example, "The moon is made of cheese" is stated as a fact. It is not true. The statement, "The moon is beautiful" is not a fact. It cannot be "true" or "untrue", because whether one thinks the moon is beautiful is an entirely subjective question of opinion.

The information about her arrest and whatnot is not "private" in any sense, but was the work product of a taxpayer supported agency.

You do not identify the state, and whether there is any specific statutory issue on the table, I have no idea.

Whether you are annoyed by a comment made only to you by the newspaper staff is not relevant to anything.

One issue that does jump to mind is whether your daughter has a common name. For example, if your daughter is named "Mary Smith", then I can understand the point of publishing the address in addition to the name (taking the decision to publish the name as given). If there are ten people named "Mary Smith" in the area, then specifically identifying which one was arrested is something of a concern.

Was this an article specifically about the event in question, or was it some sort of "Police Record" feature of the newspaper where they more or less mechanically print arrest information that comes from the department.

One of the things I do professionally, btw, is to respond to threat letters that are sent to a website which features mugshots and arrest records.

When your daughter is cleared of the charge would be an appropriate time to contact the paper and ask if they would consider a followup note to the effect that she was not convicted of that for which she was arrested.

You are correct, that I probably don't need any legal advice regarding the issue, as the newspaper can publish anything that isn't libelous.

It's more a question of ethics. My daughter has an unusual name and wouldn't be confused with anybody else. I simply cannot understand why her complete address needed to be published. How is that in the public interest? It's causing harm to me and to her personally. We had hoped to keep the incident quiet, as it's minor and doesn't need to be the talk of the town. What is to be gained by stigmatizing a high school kid as a criminal?

You're also correct that my fit of personal pique isn't relevant to the discussion except inasmuch as my daughter attempted suicide after her arrest (she has a history, although this was her first run-in with the law) and is now hospitalized. If and when she sees this article, it's not going to improve matters, and I very much have a dog in that hunt. It's none of that reporter's business, but the article has made our situation worse.

but as a former journalist for a small town paper, this is common practice. Generally most arrests are documented in the crime section.

In any case, again, if she's been charged not in juvenile court, which seems to be the case, the paper was within its rights, and I don't see a problem with what it did.

When every kid in the high school is FB posting about it, talk to me. When your kid is on suicide watch, let's talk about how something can be legal but not ethical.

How is the reporter supposed to know your daughter is on suicide watch and should not be named? You are angry and hurt; what you want is just not going to happen, nor should it.

Of course the reporter wasn't to know. But if they had a more compassionate/ethical editorial policy in place, "this conversation wouldn't be taking place." I wouldn't have an extra worry on my head.

I have a deep and abiding personal code: what's said can never be unsaid. So I am very, very careful in my choice of words. Is what I say going to harm someone, even unintentionally?

I am forever apologizing on these boards because sometimes even my well-meaning wisecracks can and do offend.

When in doubt, leave it out.

At 17, kids are supposed to know better than to put graffiti on stuff. It's not like it's a heinous crime or anything, but I imagine that whoever owned the property that was the beneficiary of the kids' artwork is not amused.

I'll tell you what my father would have done. He'd have called me a dumbass and said it was fine that I was embarrassed by the publication of my name. Then, he'd have pulled my driver's license for a month or so. After that he'd have marched me down to the location where the graffiti was located and arranged with the owner for me to scrub it off and repaint property, if needed.

That's why I never did shit like that. I knew it was wrong.



Note to add: I posted before you posted what your kid did after being arrested. I hope she's OK. My description of my father's response still stands, though. I have removed other parts of my post.

And I know where to find sympathy in the dictionary, between "shit" and "syphilis."

Where you're wrong is that my kid may NOT get over having her name in the paper. She's currently on suicide watch at a mental health facility. The punks she was with slipped her roofies and other drugs and she wouldn't rat them out for all the tea in China.

She's had her license pulled, and she knows what she did was wrong. She'll be doing community service for a long time, if she ever gets out of the hospital. But, she has a history, and this incident put her in a very black place.

I have never ever asked for sympathy on these boards. I do expect compassion, however.

With all due respect, and I know you might not take this well, but your daughter is the one that needs the help here, not the newspaper.

Of course nobody but you can appreciate the circumstances, but it SOUNDS as if you want the rest of the world to accommodate her catastrophic reaction more than seeing to it that she gets the help she needs to deal with it.

Long term, that's not good for her.

not have been there if the OP had contained the entire story. The part about what my father would have done, however, remains.

To request that the paper review its editorial policy about publishing the home addresses of juvenile offenders.

It's not going to happen, but I am certainly entitled to let them know my opinion about it.

The "mother of all flame wars" is, however, pointless and counterproductive.

I am slow to anger, but the red button got pushed with that reply from the reporter. I wasn't really angry until the sanctimony swam to the surface. I cannot abide sanctimony. Intellectually I know that is completely outside the scope of the issue, counterproductive, blood-pressure-raising, and all the rest of it, but...I'm human, and it's my kid.

All I wanted to do with that initial letter, which was courteous and polite, was to question the policy.

Your initial post was a bit thin on information. I'm sorry about what happened, for sure. But I wrote based on your OP. Had you disclosed all the information, I assure you that I would not have posted exactly what I did. I have removed part of my post.

If I can't shake out my dirty laundry on DU, it'll be a sad, sad day. Thanks for understanding. This town is too damn small; that's the problem.

http://asne.org/kiosk/editor/97.july-aug/branham1.htm

ASNE = American Society of News Editors

'Some say circumstances or the nature of the crime — not whether the juvenile is charged as an adult — is the determining factor in whether to publish the name. In those cases, if they believe circumstances warrant it, they will publish a juvenile’s name if they can get it. A few papers say they do not name juvenile suspects under any circumstances.

When questions arise about the naming of juveniles, the issue is usually bumped up to top editors to make the call. If they decide to go with the name, some papers make a point of explaining to readers why they decided to do so. . .


Robert Shaw

We wouldn’t publish the kid’s name. Generally, out policy is to not print the names of juveniles unless they are charged as adults. Here’s why:

The premise behind juvenile confidentiality is that kids make mistakes — sometimes big ones — in part because they lack the sense and maturity to know better. They ought to have the opportunity to atone for and learn from those mistakes, without being handicapped by them for the rest of their lives. That’s why the juvenile system was set up.'

I would take it up with the Editors, if I were the parent.

And seems to me publishing the address really bad policy.

laws protecting juvenile offenders and juvenile defendants identities? It seems strange that they'd be allowed to publish a minors name and address without at least a conviction.

on edit:
It would seem to be a police issue more than the paper though, the paper just publishes the list it collects from the cops but are the cops not supposed to protect information on juvenile offenders?

Just because the paper CAN publish the names and addresses doesn't mean they SHOULD. I am now happily occupied in the mother of all flame wars with this asshole of a sanctimonious reporter.

A little bit of, "OK, probably a bad call, sorry," would have gone a long way. Do not poke sleeping tigers.

What is the end game for you in this "flame war"?

What is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

If you are accusing the paper of having done something wrong, then they are perfectly well aware that any statement on their part admitting to any wrongdoing will be used by you as an admission against interest in a legal proceeding.

"Just because the paper CAN publish the names and addresses doesn't mean they SHOULD."

That's all well and good. Do you want to discuss legal issues or moral ones?

Legal information is easy to obtain. I have no interest in prosecuting the paper.

My concerns are moral and ethical. I'd like the paper to review its editorial policy to consider the age of the accused, the crime of which they're accused, and the possible repercussions of publications of the accused's address.

She's 17 years old and this was a piddling offense. Of course the location where the graffiti incident took place is the political plum of the county (a pork project brought home by the local politico), so my guess is that's why a graffiti incident is getting so much attention.

My kid's already on suicide watch. What do you think will happen if she finds out about this article--and eventually, she will?

What are one's responsibilities when dealing with child offenders in the media?

But the baseline is the First Amendment.

As you mention, it is a "piddling offense". Of greater concern than the behavior of the newspaper or the reporter with whom you've been corresponding is your daughter having blown the issue out of all reasonable proportion. That's not unusual either, but your treatment of the situation in engaging in "the mother of all flame wars" with the paper, doesn't seem to reinforce the notion that a misdemeanor arrest is not the end of the world. Modeling an appropriate response might be a better course than reinforcing the exaggerated reaction that your daughter is having.

Again, what can't be answered on DU is whether there is a specific statute implicated here.

When my daughter (who is currently hospitalized with Borderline Personality Disorder) reads this article. Kinda off topic, but "blowing things out of all proportion" is standard with this disorder. It's not voluntary, it's not deliberately histrionic, and it's not a choice. Borderline kids can tip over on a dime.

Once again: my issue is not over the arrest, or the article's publication. My issue is the needless, and potentially harmful publishing of our home address.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a reporter think twice before publishing information of this nature. "Is this necessary to the story?" "Could someone else be harmed by this?" I don't think that's out of proportion at all. Slapping it on a page without a second thought is irresponsible, in my opinion, and I said so to the paper. Clearly, eloquently (I hope), and without mincing words. I'm a lot angrier than my words would belie. (What? You think I'm thrilled by my address being in the paper?!)

A little stepping back and looking at the entire picture, though, seems appropriate to me. Considering your daughter's fragile mental state, I suppose she shouldn't be hanging around with "punks" who give her drugs. That's an issue. That they defaced a public building is another issue. Whether it's a pork project or not, though, is irrelevant.

Neither the police nor the newspaper knew anything about your daughter, other than the fact that she had been arrested for vandalism of some kind.

Now, I wouldn't be thrilled about my address being in the paper either, connected with this, but I see addresses of people all the time in the newspaper. When it's not connected to me, I don't give that much of a thought. Had your daughter not have been involved in this, I doubt you'd care if the addresses of those "punks" were printed, either.

It's all in the point of view, I think.

Again, I'm sorry about your daughter, and I hope the treatment she receives helps to stabilize her mental state.

And what I am trying to suggest to you is that:

(a) you aren't going to change the fact it was published; and

(b) your own catastrophic reaction reinforces your daughter's.

Long term, you aren't going to have a relationship with the newspaper. She needs help to get over her reaction. The newspaper is not the one in need of your help.

To BPD's everyone is an enemy or ally, and that roster can turn on a dime. Getting onboard with their vendettas is not, long term, good for them or for you.

However, based on the OP, I thought this was a legal thread. It is not, so peace out.

Glad you understand about BPD.

Peace out.

I used to be a prosecutor in an urban county with several large cities and did a long stretch in the juvenile section. I prosecuted some kids who did some horrendous things. Always handled confidentially unless they were waived to be prosecuted as adults, which was only in the most egregious circumstances. Each state has its own laws about the release of information on juveniles in the justice system. Here in NJ, the release of names of juveniles charged is prohibited. Even juvenile convictions are sealed and need court orders for release as do the records and police reports. If you get a police report where juveniles have been named, the copies released absent a court order have the names of the juveniles redacted. The court proceedings themselves, including the trials, are closed to the public. Its because they are juveniles and kids make mistakes that they should not always pay for for the rest of their lives.

It sounds like your state has different laws regarding information on juveniles. Even so, a responsible newspaper should not publish arrest information on a juvenile. Also, what a lame response from the reporter! She shouldn't have been involved in committing the act that led to the arrest? I guess there is no presumption of innocence in your state either. The reporter doesn't need to maintain a neutral bias. Good, ethical and responsible journalists do, but not every reporter does. He should be guided by some ethical standards. This reporter seems to have forgotten them.

...........you might want to do some research into your State's law, because most States have statutes on the books prohibiting the publishing of the identity of juveniles in legal situations. I know mine does. And it's so strict that the Clerk's Office is not even allowed to print the full name of a juvenile on pleadings that occur in public records (only the child's initials). For example, if you went to look up the status of a given Juvenile Court case, you'd see that the case caption would read something like, "in re: T.C."

Maybe even call a civil rights attorney in your area, or if you don't know where to look for one, check with your local Bar Association.

The editor should have simply thanked you for your email, politlely and clearly explained the paper's policy, and -- possibly -- invited you to submit a letter to the editor.

The last line was unprofessional and accusatory, in my opinion as a former managing editor and reporter.

the names of minors charged, let alone their addresses.

as others have noted, maybe it varies by state/locality.

or maybe it's yet another symptom of the move to the total surveillance state & its "suppress the peasants" diktats.

i don't know the answer to your question, but i hope you will push the issue as far as you can.

IMHO, her name should never have been published. She is a child and kids often do stupid things. What their stupid actions shouldn't do is follow them for their entire adult lives, as a reported news article will. Here in Canada, the press are not allowed to identify minors in alleged crimes (in fact, even in actual proven crimes). The press can't even identify an adult in a crime against a minor in case it somehow exposes the minor's identity. And whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? Lapis, you have my sympathies.