Skip to content

Blog assignment for Prof. Cifatte’s sections

October 16, 2011

Think back on our discussion of naming victims and juvenile offenders in stories.  Where do you, as a news consumer, expect the media to draw the line?  Should be we filter the raw information when it comes to victims’ names?  Offenders under 18?  Write a clear, concise paragraph or two that outline the guidelines as you believe they should be.

36 Comments leave one →
  1. Melissa Bognaski permalink
    October 17, 2011 9:08 am

    Indeed, news organizations need to filter some information. They especially need to filter the raw information when it comes to naming victims of crimes, no matter what age they are. The victims have already gone through enough. Announcing their names tends to degrade them and cause them embarrassment. Only if a victim insists on going public with their story and does not mind sharing their name, should the media broadcast it. If victims choose to disclose themselves, then the media needs to make sure they are in a rightful state of mind and are not feeling pressured to do so.
    When it comes to naming offenders under the age of 18, I believe that it depends on the severity of the crime committed. If someone is accused of stealing a shirt from the Gap then it is not necessary to name them. However, if someone is accused of killing someone, bringing a gun to school, or robbing a bank, then the media should not stray away from revealing their name. About a year ago, a fight occurred off a school bus near my home. It involved two teenage boys that went to my high school. One of the boys was stabbed and died. I searched the news channels to find the name of the offender. Finding out who he was made me feel more connected to the story. When it comes to heinous crimes, even if the media does not mention an offender’s name, someone else will. Most of the crimes committed by youth are done knowing they are wrong, so their name should not be protected. They need to learn that their actions have consequences. Many people may argue that those under 18, and accused of a crime, should not be named until they are proven guilty, but by then it will probably be “old news”.

  2. Carleen Hunt permalink
    October 17, 2011 10:26 am

    I think that the news often tells stories that are not necessary. I believe that if a story does not affect more than just the families involved, there’s no need to tell the whole community. On that note, I don’t believe news stations should ever give away a victims name, unless they gave the OK to do so in order to get their story out there.Without a victims name, the story if often pointless to tell. I don’t see the need in telling the story anyways, because it’s not like we need to know that someone was robbed or raped. All we need to know is the person who did it, so if the police haven’t found them yet, there’s no point in scaring the whole community by telling them what happened and that the person is still out there. Once police knows a criminals name and has a picture, it is that information that they should put out, that is what is news worthy.

  3. Laureen Esposito permalink
    October 17, 2011 10:34 am

    I believe that if the offender is under the age of 18 he/she is a minor by law and you shouldn’t release their name unless it involves violence and deaths. The reason is even if the offender has done the same crime over and over and is a nuescence to the community you have to understand that he / she is still a minor and is protected by law. I think that some news station don’t follow this and release information about minors with thier name in black and white far too often. The guidlines should be you can put the minors name if they are a victim minus the rape victim because that isn’t proper and if they are the offender as long as it is violent and causes death the minors name can show other wise I don’t believe it should be.

  4. Sheilla Dumel permalink
    October 17, 2011 10:35 am

    The media outlets in every country are dominated by collectivists who believe it is their duty to filter or alter the news. so the common man will have a correct opinion even those of use who are aware of this bias can fall victim to it if we have no access to the raw facts. Naming someone who is under 18 about the crime they have done is unnecessary unless that person is found guilty of murder with proven facts. we all know that people who are under the age of 18 are irresponsible but naming them and will only make their lives worst. I really do not see thee point of naming someone just because the media wants the whole world to know about an irresponsible teenager whom at some point were just like them. so in conclusion i do not favor naming victims who are under the age of 18 unless its a murder case with proven hard facts.

  5. Taylor Dawson permalink
    October 17, 2011 10:38 am

    When it comes to juvenile crimes I believe the nature and severity of the crime should indeed be taken into account before throwing a name out into the public. I agree to an extent with what Melissa said about many people argue that those under 18 and accused of a crime should not have their name released until proven guilty. Yes, by the time the minor is proven guilty/non guilty it will be old news but if the news sites and other media outlets do not publish the information, those in search of a name may find the other sources unreliable. By putting anyone’s name that “commited a crime” on a reliable website such as a news organization or revealing it on the nightly broadcast will forever tarnish a persons name and reputation, which is fine if they commited the crime, but what if they didn’t? In serious offenses, I understand there is a demand for names to be released as a sense of closure and security but it is often unnecessary to release a name because the person is already handcuffed or behind bars, they can no longer hurt you, so whether you know who exactly they are doesn’t entirely matter. Names of minors should DEFINITELY not be revealed for small crimes such as stealing, as these acts can be fixed by doing community service or returning the stolen item. Commiters for crimes such as murder or violence shouldn’t automatically get the “get out jail free” card, so to speak, when it comes to name reveal, but names should also not be tossed around lightly. Having your name connected to a severe crime affects the rest of your life, and the media should be completely sure they’re revealing the correct name before disclosing the information. As for victims, they are often already embarrassed of their situation and probably don’t want any other attention on them. If they allow the media to reveal their information then that is fine, but otherwise victim identification should be kept unknown to the public.

  6. Tania permalink
    October 17, 2011 10:39 am

    As a news consumer, I expect the media to withhold names of minors, juvenile offenders unless their tried as an adult and rape victims. I believe that the media has the power to influence and it is their responsibility to be the gate keeper of information. To illustrate, if a news outlet decides to name every victim or juvenile offender it basically opens a Pandora ’s Box. It’s out there for the world to see forever and ever. It would be a world without flicker of redemption. It would be a world with more suicides, because of embarrassment and fear.
    As a guideline I think the news media should only name victims unless the news is already out there. By this I mean if it is a case that has nationwide appeal, it is in the court system then yes, I do believe all parties should be named. In addition, I think the journalist should be objective as possible, in doing this it brings forth ideas or solutions on how better to deal with this type of crime. We the consumer may be able to empathize with either the victim or the aggressor. It may not be the ideal system but it could bring about positive change.

  7. Brent Atteberry permalink
    October 17, 2011 10:50 am

    Although information about victims is public information, I feel that the media should not broadcast the names and faces of victims unless the victims are willing to do so. I feel that if a victim wishes for privacy then the media should respect that as much as possible. Everyone enjoys their privacy and it should be respected.
    However, when it comes to offenders I believe it is the job of the media to objectively report as much relevant information as possible. The media can not use definitive remarks but should tell the facts from police reports and other reliable information. The media shouldn’t paint a negative light on people because if it turns out that the alleged offender is found not guilty the news organization will have helped to destroy the reputation of the person. In the event that the alleged offender is a minor, I think that the appropriate action is to maintain anonymity unless the alleged offender is being prosecuted for a violent crime.
    As much as the media has a duty to inform the public when someone is accused of I crime, the media must also accurately report on the verdict. If someone is found not guilty it is just as important to report as if someone is found guilty. The news media must always remain an objective source of information that allows only facts to be broadcast while respecting the privacy of victims.

  8. Brittany permalink
    October 17, 2011 12:15 pm

    As a news consumer I feel as if the news should have some limitation when it comes to releasing stories and names of victims. Being a victim of a serious crime such as rape, I feel that your name should not be released because than you could have a different image to others in your community. As far as if you are the one committing the crime that I feel as if your name should be released but not until all evidence is in and you know forsure that that person did it. I think it is sad when you see someone get convicted of a crime and then after all the trials and their name being publicly released, they are innocent. Being under 18 years of age i feel as if the same rules apply. Even though people think they are protecting underage kids, their name is still going to be released and everyone will know what happened, so why not release their names if the names will be released anyways? As much as we all want privacy and want our business to stay out of the media, let’s face it, everyone will find out what is going on and who did it no matter where you live and what age you are.

  9. October 17, 2011 12:28 pm

    News organizations need to have a filter on the information they give. When it comes to crimes, a crime victims name should never be released without their permission. The details about how the crime happened should be allowed to be given, but the victim should not have to face even more embarrassment than they already have. If the victim decides to make the incident public, that is their decision.
    When it comes to offenders who are minors, I strongly believe that their names should not be released. They are not yet adults and should not have to live with their names tied to a crime and being exposed to the public for the rest of their lives. In some situations, their names are tied to a crime and then later are proven innocent. For example, at my middle school 4 boys were charged as adults for an awful crime and their names were all over the news. Here is the link:
    Lee Myers was known as a very good kid and the people who knew him were shocked when they heard the news, but everyone had formed a new opinion about him. Months later, court had proven him innocent but his name was still out there. He applied to get into a prestigious private all-boys high school in the area who denied his application just because his name was tied to the investigation.

  10. Alison Johnson permalink
    October 17, 2011 1:08 pm

    There should be limited information broadcast in the news when it comes to victims or juveniles. If it is a sexually offended victim, the news media should not post any names or specifics of that person. News should be raw information, but displaying a victim’s name and face on national television does not have a purpose other than putting the victim and their family in further pain.
    With offenders under 18, I think their names should not be put out either, unless they’re charged as an adult. Yes the extent of their crimes should be known and clear, yet as minors, I think their names/faces must be sealed. Like what we discussed in class, as a juvenile their record will be expunged once they turn 18 and under the laws eyes such crimes never occurred. Why have the minors name out in public when eventually their crimes cease to exist. Yes people can get these type of information on the World Wide Web, however if the state declares a minor clear of their crimes why bother tying them to their past charges? If they truly are a threat to the community the state would not have pardon them of their crimes, and as corrupt and twisted as the law is, it is still the law.

  11. Rachel Perez permalink
    October 17, 2011 1:45 pm

    I think that news organizations should filter the news in certain situations. When it comes to a violent attack, I do believe that the victim’s name should not be released unless he/she gives permission. As for juveniles, I think that their names should not be published, given the nature of the crime. If it is a violent crime, however, I do think that the person’s name should be released. It’s tricky, keeping in mind the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ thought process. I think that each situation with juveniles should be looked at individualy rather than having set rules and limitations for ALL cases; it just isn’t realistic.

    Each news organization is responsible for itself. That particular organization should adhere to its own ethical guidlines. If another station decides to release a name or whatnot, that is its own perogative. If there is a partnership in publication, like for example a news channel and newspaper, they should work together to think of a happy medium. If a news consumer looks to different news media and “puts together” a story and a name then that is up to them. A news organization should be able to look back and agree on the decision that they made.

  12. October 17, 2011 3:00 pm

    I am torn with whether or not I believe a minor should be named when they commited a crime. Without a doubt, a victim of a rape, beating or anything else should not be named. Their pain and recovery should not exploited by the news plastering their name and face for the whole world to see. When it comes to juvenile offenders, I think that they deserve what they get when they commit a crime. For example, If you’re dumb enough to try and steal your neighbor’s car, then you should expect all the consequences that follow. However, kids will be kids. Who knows, his parents could be in a middle of a nasty divorce and that could be the only time in his entire life he would ever attempt to steal a car. If a local news station covers the story and exploits the child, he might never get another chance to redeem himself. So, for petty crimes I do not think that the minor should be named.
    However, if a minor is an extreme danger to the society (murderer, etc), then his face and name should be shown to the public. Because of the severity of the crime, the public should know for their own safety. But, if the minor is on trial and pleads “not guilty”, I believe his name should not be mentioned until the judge issues a result. I couldn’t imagine anything worse for a minor than him being convicted as “guilty” in the public eye, but “not guilty” in court. So, basically, to save a lot of time and effort, media outlets should not name any juvenile offender unless they are convicted of a serious crime like rape or murder.

  13. Aleksandr Skop permalink
    October 17, 2011 3:03 pm

    I believe that the broad consensus on not naming victims is perfectly justified. Of course the severity of crimes vary. usually the ones that have a lot of media coverage are pretty severe, and the victim has enough to deal with. Unless the victim clearly asks or believes it is important to inform the community of the crime, I believe it is absolutely justified for withholding their names, particularly in rape/violent cases and/or with minors. Like mentioned earlier, some crimes shouldn’t be covered at all unless the victim and their family give the OK for it.
    As for the perpetrators, I believe it depends on the crime they commit. I mostly agree with the idea that minors are still too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, however sometimes the offenders definitely deserve gaining notoriety for their actions. For example, I believe if a minor is tried as an adult, they ALWAYS should be named. Secondly, a minor committing a heinous violent and/or sexual act should be named. If the crime committed demonstrates that the perpetrator is unlikely to “rehabilitate” and learn the error of his ways (crimes involving a great deal of cruelty, hatred or animosity), the community deserves to be warned.

  14. Cody Pry permalink
    October 17, 2011 3:14 pm

    I believe the media should not name any names when it comes to minors unless they are the person who committed a terrible crime and are a potential problem for the rest of society. Should a minor kill someone, get arrested for armed robbery, or break into someones house then I believe they should be named. As for the victims that happen to be minors of a certain crime should not be named. The media does not have the place to say these childrens names and cause them even more problems and embarrassment just for a news story.

  15. Arcadia Hauquitz permalink
    October 17, 2011 5:33 pm

    Yes, news should filter the raw data when it comes to victims names. They have been through enough without embarrassing them further to the people they know and public in general. I expect the media to be curdious and respectful of the victims identities and the events they have just been subjected to. It is fine to run the story but as a consumer I don’t need to know who the victim is to understand the story. Their names should only be given when consent is given by the victim, otherwise we are just putting them through further hardship.
    As for juvenile offenders I don’t think they should be named under any circumstance until they are found guilty or charged as an adult. It would be wrong for news to publish the names of juvenile offenders because they’re just kids and allowing the public to know the dumb mistake they made could cost them their future. It could prevent the from getting jobs, joining teams, how they’re treated at school, or participating in the community. This in turn could lead them to further criminal acts. It is also unnecessary. As stated above, as a consumer I don’t need to know the juveniles name in order to understand the story. If I hear that vandalism occurred near my house then I know to be more alert for it, why is knowing the kids name important if I already know what they did and am now informed of the offense? It’s not and therefore should not be included.

  16. Matt Weaver permalink
    October 17, 2011 5:36 pm

    In journalism young offenders under 18 and victims of heinous crimes should not be named. For people accused under the age of 18 should not have their names revealed unless convicted in court of a serious crime. Persons under the age of 18 who are only accused do not need to face any problems that may come from an accusation of a crime. After conviction its the public’s right to know what happened. As for victims of heinous crimes, their names shouldn’t be named to not cause them any undue duress. Many times after these crimes the victims are still recovering from the incident don’t need the added stress of knowing that all of the public knows what happened before they have a chance to tell others about what has happened to them. There are and can be exceptions, as there always are, which should be decided upon on a case by case basis.

  17. Melissa Roche permalink
    October 17, 2011 5:45 pm

    As a news consumer, I have certain expectations when it comes to naming victims and juvenile offenders in news stories. Regarding victims, I believe that any information that could be potentially damaging to them (the victims) should be filtered. I have these expectations especially when it comes to cases dealing with rape victims. Therefore, I expect the media to filter the names of victims of sexual assault because it could be psychologically and socially detrimental to them. When it comes to juvenile offenders, I also expect the media to filter their names. In my opinion, offenders under 18 should not be named until they are convicted because they are considered innocent until proven guilty. There are a few exceptions to this, though. If a juvenile offender is accused of a grizzly crime, such as a violent crime (murder, assault, etc), I expect the media to name them.

  18. Paige Lukert permalink
    October 17, 2011 6:04 pm

    In my personal opinion I think that there should be certain filters for certain situations when it comes to naming victims and juvenile offenders in news stories. I think that if the victim was somehow sexually assaulted, molested, raped, etc then the only time their names should be mentioned is if they want to be. With juveniles, I feel that they should be named if they commit some sort of violent crime. I think the public has a right to know if there is a dangerous kid running around hurting people. Also, I think that juveniles should be named if they are charged as adults. If they want to commit crimes like adults, then they should be named like adults. During any other circumstance, they should remain unnamed though.

  19. Andrew Yelich permalink
    October 17, 2011 6:50 pm

    Victims of crimes should be able to choose whether or not they’re named in the media. If they were not able to prevent a crime from being committed on them then they should at least be able to prevent whether the whole community finds out. Some information is sensitive to people and they would like their privacy. As for under the age of 18 I think it should be automatic that they’re name be removed from a report. It could be too damaging to them and they might be treated differently by their peers. All in all, it should be up to the victim to decide whether or not they get the publicity of being victimized.

  20. October 17, 2011 6:55 pm

    I believe that there should definitely be certain filters when discussing victim’s names in the media. When a rape or a murder occurs the media should take special care when deciding if names should be released. With rape I believe that name’s should not be published, especially if the victim is under 18, but if the victim specifically states that they want their name to be published then the media should follow their wants. When discussing murder if the family has not been notified then the media should not release the names of the victims. To further ensure that the family is not affected I believe that media outlets should wait a few days. By doing this the family is given time to grive and give the news to extended family and close friends. When dealing with such sensitive information the media should take extreme caution, and should always think of the people affected before their story.

  21. Mary Castro permalink
    October 17, 2011 6:56 pm

    When it comes to naming victims of a crime it can be very sticky. But As a news consumer I would draw the line to sexual assault victims. Last class we discussed that names of sexual assault victims are never put out to the public and I think this should be kept. But when it comes to minors committing crimes I think we should look at the crimes individually. If it is a violent crime I do think they should be named but if the crime is something like vandalism then the names shouldn’t be important. If the minors are named during a vandalism crime and the minor did not do it this could be extremely harmful to the reputation of the minor. I think that these situations should be considered when naming a minor. When it comes to adults I do think they should be named

  22. Jasmine Lewis permalink
    October 17, 2011 6:59 pm

    As it relates to juvenile offenders, as a news consumer, I expect the media to draw the line at the degree of how serious the crime is. The age to name these offenders is now 18 but I feel the age should be 13. At 13, you are considered a teenager, and at 13 you should know right from wrong and should be able to determine what is considered moral and ethical behavior. Information should be filtered when it comes to victims’ names because in some cases victims’ deal with emotional distress.

  23. Nathan Ingham permalink
    October 17, 2011 7:44 pm

    I think that Juvenile offenders should not be named until proven guilty with certain exceptions. The reason I believe this is because it is not fair to really hurt a young persons reputation because of a minor crime they comitted at a younger age. My exception is if the juvenile becomes harmful or dangerous to the community they live in I think that it is the news rooms responsibility to report and make people aware of it. If it is a repeat offence but is still a minor offence that does not endanger the community there is no reason for the name to get out unless they are found guilty in a court of law.

  24. Sarah Lappen permalink
    October 17, 2011 7:50 pm

    As news consumers we are often just as curious as to who committed a crime as we are to exactly what the crime entailed. In many cases however, the who is not necessarily important and revealing such information in many cases can cause more harm than good. It is my opinion that unless tried as an adult for a serious crime a minor’s identity should be protected, because revealing their identity may impact the rest of their lives. They may have trouble getting jobs and if they end up being found innocent of whatever crime they were tied to the stigma attached to their name may never go away. It is unfair to ruin a minors future over a mistake they make as a child. Having ones name attached to a crime can also cause one to become a social outcast, especially in smaller communities where everyone knows one another. Parents and teachers may never look a student the same way again once they have been associated with some form of legal conflict.
    I also believe that news sources breaking the asme story, as we discussed in class should confer with one another or at least look at the way each other break the story so as not to inadvertently reveal identities, as we saw in the case involving the woman’s two children. It is crucial that news media outlets bear in mind the impact that just a few words can have on someone else’s life.

  25. Samantha Jodice permalink
    October 17, 2011 8:00 pm

    As a news consumer and having been under the age of 18 not too long ago, I feel as though the media and news organizations should have the responsibility of protecting the identity of those at such a ripe age, but I believe this protection should be taken away once the juvenile is convicted of the crime or is a threat to those around him or her. These days it is not a rarity for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime and we have to understand that when we expose the name of a person, their life can and probably will be damaged forever. Now if that person, such as a juvenile, is convicted of a crime than they have chosen that damage themselves.
    On the other hand, when it comes to victims, I do not believe that their names should be brought to light, unless they give the permission to do so. They have already been deeply affected by whatever their situation is, so why put them in the public to suffer.

  26. Michael Bridges permalink
    October 17, 2011 8:22 pm

    I believe minors under the age of 18 should almost always have their names hidden. The protection of minors, in my opinion, supersedes the crime involved, when it comes to most crimes. However, I believe in some cases, such as, perhaps a violent minor who has already committed murder and is now on the run, at least a picture of the minor would be necessary in order for the public to protect themselves.
    As for the victims of these crimes, they should never be shown. I don’t believe the release of the names would add anything but more pain for the victim, who has already been through enough. Minors victims in particular should have complete protection, and have neither their names nor pictures shown.

  27. Melissa Wolfe permalink
    October 17, 2011 8:46 pm

    I feel that the question of whether or not names should be published when it comes to minor offeneders depends on the nature of the crime. If it is a violent crime then I think that the names should be mentioned for the safety of the community. Another situation where I think the name should be mentioned is if the minor is being tried as an adult. As for the victim, it should be at the victim’s descretion as to whether or not they want to have their name published. The organization should never publish a victim’s name without consent from the victim.

  28. Emily Spaulding permalink
    October 17, 2011 10:24 pm

    I think that the lines to draw in the subject of filtration of the names of minors in the media are extremely blurry and will always remain that way. In my personal opinion, names of minors should not be released in any form of public media unless that minor should be harmful to the community. With that being said, one person’s view of danger may be another’s view of child’s play (i.e. distribution of alcohol to minors, petty theft, etc.) In all honesty I think it’s up to the publisher or news station’s discretion to decide whether or not they find that releasing a name is truly necessary. If a child is harmful to those that surround him/her, their name should be released for the sole purpose of the safety of the community and for no other purpose.

  29. Karla permalink
    October 18, 2011 1:19 am

    I believe mentioning someone’s name, in this case a minor, should not be allowed. If the minor has caused a big impact in our society or his/her community then their name should be announced. If the minor killed, injured an individual severely then their name should be exposed. Some minors could be really immature sometimes therefore their actions can be foolish that can turn into consequences with the law, that’s when I think their names should not be published. But if the minor committed a murder crime or they tried to break into a house that hurt families or communities then that’s when their name should published. I could see those type of cases shown in the news; they would be significant to the public somehow. I also believe it’s up to the news to decided whether or not the minor’s information should be filtered or not, it’s really up to them to make that decision.

  30. Heather Comitz permalink
    October 18, 2011 2:48 am

    I believe it depends on the crime, in the case of victims’ names being filtered. If a car was stolen, I don’t think it should matter whether or not the name is disclosed. However, a victim of a violent crime should be contacted for permission to disclose their information. Those victims from violence names’ should be protected, unless their consent is given. Those victims may not ever believe they can reestablish their integrity again, forever (or for a long duration of their life) traumatizing them. This, in my opinion, contributes to defamation of character, regardless if it is news. Let’s say a curious potential employer feels the need to look-up a certain potential employee and they find an article stating this employee got shot. That shooting may have been an accident, directed towards a completely different person. But that employer is going to make his own assumptions, discrediting that employee’s chances of getting the job. Why publish a victim’s name, anyway? The offenders’ name is the one needing to be published.

    You know what you’re doing after the age of 18. I have to be honest and place some blame to parents. A child raised in the ghetto, is going to be more susceptible to actually committing the crime, than a child raised in a crime-free atmosphere. Not to say that a child raised in a virtually crime-restricted neighborhood would indefinitely not commit a crime. We grow up with different morals and values embedded in our minds. However the circumstances, we still did it, and we have to reap the consequences. These regrets are inevitable. Therefore, I believe the names of juvenile offenders should not be filtered. Also for the reason that these crimes may directly affect others’ lives. This is especially tolerable if crimes are heinous. We can keep our distance, knowing an offender’s name. Nevertheless, people change. I can safely say almost everyone does crap they wish they hadn’t as an adolescent. For this reason, my opinion on publishing the names of offenders under 18 is dissimilar. Because we all know we’ve committed petty crimes as a child. So, don’t publish victims’ names, do disclose juvenile offenders, but opt out the ones under 18.

  31. Adrienne David permalink
    October 18, 2011 9:46 am

    I think that the media needs to give out just enough information that everyone listening or watching will know just what is going on without releasing information like names to the public. I feel like it really depends on the crime committed. Also, the age of the commiter. For example, if its a minor, I do not think that their name should be released due to the fact that they can get another “chance” and not be known just for that. As for adults, over 18, their names should be released based on the crime. I guess make a list of crimes that qualify and put the names of over 18 year old people in the media. I also think that the sources have a choice, it is up to them whether or not the names are relaeased.

  32. October 18, 2011 11:29 am

    When it comes to matters concerning persons under 18, i believe it is the responsibility of the press NOT to expose their identity and personal information for any crime perpetrated short of rape and murder. Young people should be given lee way by society to make some mistakes. Also, i believe no victim of rape or other sexual crimes should be exposed without thier consent. Further, the press should also leave out certain details of developing stories, especially those concerning civilians, until all the facts are in. Many reputations have been ruined by ‘jumping the gun’, destroying self-esteem, families and careers.

    • Chris Cifatte permalink
      November 9, 2011 12:50 pm

      I need to know who this is to give proper credit for the comment.

  33. James Carroll permalink
    October 24, 2011 7:18 pm

    Juvenile offenders are indeed criminals, but whether they’re reputation should be tainted by an offence at such a young age is pretty obvious. Kids often don’t have the maturity to understand the repercussions of their actions. I certainly didn’t think very deeply about the long-term health effects of smoking the first time I had a cigarette. It doesn’t seem fair to publish a juvenile’s name after one, or even two offences. The media should definitely show mercy towards children who make mistakes. That’s just what kids do. Now if they clearly don’t learn from their mistakes, and they pose a potential threat to others, then I believe the community has the right to know, and the media has the responsibility to inform them.
    When it comes to victims, I don’t believe that the media should have to right to name them without explicit consent. As a victim of a crime, you often just want to move on from the event and not bring it up with others. It could also be something embarrassing that reveals something about you that you want to keep private (ie. “A man, Joe Doe, mugged and beaten at a local pornography shop…”, etc). When some teenagers driving by in a van shot my sister in the back with a dart gun, Naples Daily News interviewed her for a TV report. They asked her if she wanted to remain anonymous, which she did. However, if the scene had been a large fuss and media showed up to the “crime scene” and reported on it, I would not be surprised if they revealed her identity, which she obviously would have been upset about. To me, knowing the victim’s name just seems superfluous in many cases. I’m sure there are cases where it is relevant, but explicit consent should still be a requirement.

  34. Andrew Yelich permalink
    November 28, 2011 2:54 pm

    my post isn’t here so I’ll write again…

    It should be up to the family members and minor whether the victims name is reported. When dealing with kids still in high schools there is a privacy factor that needs to come into play. Kids are easily manipulated and they can be very cruel when it comes to learning information like that. No one would want to grow up being known as the victim of a nasty crime and potentially face mocking and jokes at their expense. On the other hand, some people can handle that situation better than others and speak out on behalf of themselves and not be afraid to let everyone know they have been victimized. It comes down to again whether the family or the minor is ok with everyone seing and knowing that they were a victim. As for the offenders, it should be age of 17 when they are allowed to put the name. And certain crimes by offenders under the age of 17 depending on the seriousness. 17 y/o aren’t babies anymore and shouldn’t be treated as such.

  35. December 6, 2011 10:38 pm

    I think the media should draw the line on minors for both criminal offenses and victimization. The media coverage could not only be misleading, but could be completely wrong. With media coverage that could be in accurate towards consumers it can lead to long lasting effects for not only the minor, but the family as well. Effects could be but not limited to harassment, discrimination, and other physical and mental anomalies that could affect their development. Raw information should not be released no matter the situation. It can be incredibly uncomfortable and upsetting for everyone, even the consumer. As an example, my friend’s mother was brutally murdered and the media kept revealing untrue and personal information that devastated her

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: