What can you say about this?
- Thread starter Ebonbuddha
- Start date
Drake Farstrider
New member
Well if he is found guilty I hope he gets what he deserves.
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Innocent until proven guilty - except in child abuse cases where you have to spend a fortune to \"prove\" your innocence. I\'m sorry, but we are not privilege to the whole story here and it is very easy for a teen to shout rape/abuse in hopes of some publicity/money/who knows.
Sorry EB, I\'ve seen two cases of some kid wanting to get back at a teacher for a low grade and ruining the teacher\'s life. Innocent or guilty does not matter, they leave the school system either way. A lawyer flat told my friend that it would be a minimum of $10,000 to \'prove\' his innocence and even then there would be a shadow over him the rest of his life and he might as well find a new profession.
On the other hand, if he knowingly did this, he deserves to be thrown into a small cell with a big inmate.
Ebonbuddha
Active member
But I didn\'t say he was guilty. And I didn\'t say you have to say he is guilty. I just said he isn\'t my idol. Its just an article. Not a commitment.
Ah..see the only reason the story even exists is to his \'psuedo-link\' to celebritism. Its got nothing to do with the possible crime
If this was just some guy from Nantucket, it wouldn\'t have made the news paper (except the local crime log).
I don\'t know about the rest of the world, but American news in general are so infactuated with celebritism that they have clouded real news from fake. I for one am sick to death of it.
Has the quest for celebritism and the news reporters \'need\' to print stories about it always been around? Or am I becoming increasingly jaded and cynical about it.
If this was just some guy from Nantucket, it wouldn\'t have made the news paper (except the local crime log).
I don\'t know about the rest of the world, but American news in general are so infactuated with celebritism that they have clouded real news from fake. I for one am sick to death of it.
Has the quest for celebritism and the news reporters \'need\' to print stories about it always been around? Or am I becoming increasingly jaded and cynical about it.
what I\'m confused about, is that he\'s accused of \"making a videotape of sexual acts with minors\"... What does that mean?! Either there is a video or not, and it seems more like evidence of child molestation rather than the charge in itself. Of course if the tape has been made available then it\'s child pornography...but then \"accused\" seems a bit mild, since that it pretty sound proof of the act: there either is a video or not. If the police have the video, I think we can pretty much go straight to that he\'s charged with this act, rather than accussed.
In cases of child molestation/pornography, the question of extenuating circumstances, or motivations, or anything really, doesn\'t matter much, you either did it or you didn\'t, pretty black or white.
In cases of child molestation/pornography, the question of extenuating circumstances, or motivations, or anything really, doesn\'t matter much, you either did it or you didn\'t, pretty black or white.
Exactly, and for that very reason media should report about these things when people are convicted instead of producing confusing reports like this one. And regardless of whether there are solid evidence or not, the media should not act as if it was a court and pass out premature convictions, because in reality it\'s what this article is.
On the other hand (to play devils advocate again). When this action is so demonized by the media, and shoved in everyones face, wouldn\'t it in some ways act as a reminder to all those potential child molestors to perhaps avoid the act. Laws often dissuade people only if they believe they will get caught, but otherwise the actions are ok, however when something is socially demonized, it takes on a whole different level, and people might more consider it repulsive, even if they are not getting caught.
But of course tell that to the people falsely accused and lives ruined due to it...
But of course tell that to the people falsely accused and lives ruined due to it...
The public does have a right to know even if someone is indicted of a crime and not just convicted. BUT...increasingly that is also a ploy used to ruin someone, especially in Politics....it is not the conviction of the crime that can ruin you, but just the CHARGE...The court of public opinion is dangerous, and the media loves to fan the flames of it.
The media does have a responsibility to report that sort of thing, they just take it too far most times.
The media does have a responsibility to report that sort of thing, they just take it too far most times.
I can\'t see the point in the media reporting when people are suspected of crimes. (I\'m talking about named individuals here...) If a person is arrested for a crime and is deemed dangerous to the public he will be put in custody until the court hearing.
People might have an interest in knowing whether there are suspects for a certain crime, or if the perpetrator is most likely on the loose. I don\'t see any reason, however, in naming suspects (or publishing photos) until they are convicted.
People might have an interest in knowing whether there are suspects for a certain crime, or if the perpetrator is most likely on the loose. I don\'t see any reason, however, in naming suspects (or publishing photos) until they are convicted.
No no...I\'d never advocate a suspect being published (unless possibly for a manhunt type scenario)....But to wait until they are convicted seems much too long.
Once they are formally charged, it becomes part of the public record and the media should report that. The media should still have a responsibility of not courting public opinion. They are much too powerful in swaying opinion. The indictment articles should give plain facts...who, what, where....etc.
Especially when the subject is sex! REcently the mayor of a small city near here was arrested for attempted phone solicitation of sex with someone he thought was 14. Now this is a serious crime and the public has a right to know.
However for the next 6 months or more the TV news people mlanaged to work it into almost every possible story:
\"There was a murder today in the city of XYZ, which of course is only 10 miles from the city of ABC where the mayor was recently arrested for soliciting sex with a minor.\"
\"The event was attended by the SMith family, who, as far as we know, don\'t know the mayor of ABC who was recntly arrested for soliciting sex with a minor.\"
\"An here folks is our HIgh School Athlete of the Week, Tammy Snidebottom . Tammy, tell me, did the mayor of ABC ever attempt to solicit you for sex?\"
It got just a bit overbearing after awhile.
I don\'t really follow your reasoning here, Jim... Let\'s say a guy called \"Johnny\" (no offence to anyone named Johnny here... I just picked a fairly international name out of the blue) is suspected of having molested a child and is arrested. At some point, before the final judgement of the court, the media decides it\'s been long enough since the crime and reports that Johnny is being prosecuted for child molesting. Wherein lies the \"need to know\" for the public? Isn\'t it sufficient to know that someone has been arrested and is being prosecuted?
Furthermore, let\'s say Johnny is freed in the trial. Regardless of how careful the media has been with saying he was only \"suspected\" of the crime and that he was eventually found innocent his name will be associated with this crime and some people will think things like \"I bet he did it! Those judges are just being soft and incompetent...\". If I was Johnny I would sure wish to be able to leave this incident behind me and not have to fight people\'s suspicions for the rest of my life.
Now, if Johnny was finally convicted... then there is reason for people to know about it, and society shouldn\'t have to care more than absolutely necessary about his rights.
Furthermore, let\'s say Johnny is freed in the trial. Regardless of how careful the media has been with saying he was only \"suspected\" of the crime and that he was eventually found innocent his name will be associated with this crime and some people will think things like \"I bet he did it! Those judges are just being soft and incompetent...\". If I was Johnny I would sure wish to be able to leave this incident behind me and not have to fight people\'s suspicions for the rest of my life.
Now, if Johnny was finally convicted... then there is reason for people to know about it, and society shouldn\'t have to care more than absolutely necessary about his rights.
Anders, at the same time, the court system very much CAN be soft and/or incompitent. For example, if OJ Simpson, who was not convicted of Murder, moved in next door, I\'d sort of want to know what happened surrounding his case.
In this case, say there IS a tape of this crime, but otherwise there is no solid evidence. What if the police mess up and obtain the tape in an illegal way, making it inadmissable to the court, resulting in the guy judged not-guilty when he clearly is? That\'s another example.
Also these cases often have more to do with the laywers hired than the facts of the case. At some point the legal system fails and the media/social system is there to warn people.
There is no perfect way to solve this, because on one hand you\'re leaving people uninformed that they may be at risk from unconvicted criminals. And on the other, you\'re punishing people socially for crimes they didn\'t commit. Which is worse? I guess personally I don\'t feel too bad for the person who may have had to relocate to a different town due to something like this, when compaired to child who will likely have emotional and likely physical repercussions their entire lives as the result of mollestation.
It\'s a big huge grey area really, where do you draw the line?
In this case, say there IS a tape of this crime, but otherwise there is no solid evidence. What if the police mess up and obtain the tape in an illegal way, making it inadmissable to the court, resulting in the guy judged not-guilty when he clearly is? That\'s another example.
Also these cases often have more to do with the laywers hired than the facts of the case. At some point the legal system fails and the media/social system is there to warn people.
There is no perfect way to solve this, because on one hand you\'re leaving people uninformed that they may be at risk from unconvicted criminals. And on the other, you\'re punishing people socially for crimes they didn\'t commit. Which is worse? I guess personally I don\'t feel too bad for the person who may have had to relocate to a different town due to something like this, when compaired to child who will likely have emotional and likely physical repercussions their entire lives as the result of mollestation.
It\'s a big huge grey area really, where do you draw the line?
