Thoughts On Publication Bans
Colby Cosh has posted an interesting item on his blog, concerning a ban on publishing the identity of an accused in the case of a child's murder.
Let me begin by making my opinion clear: this is a preposterous perversion of the intent of these regulations, put in place to protect a child and now protecting the child's murderer. There is absolutely no benefit to the child in keeping his/her identity a secret - there can be no stigma attached to it's future, because it has none. The people who write these regulations really need to give their heads a shake, and rethink this, and make the necessary changes to ensure this doesn't happen again. Protecting the privacy of a dead child benefits no one except the perpetrator (should he be found guilty).
The trend in Canadian courts in the past decade or so (since Karla Homolka's trial, really) is to try to protect the victims and their families by keeping the more prurient aspects of the case away from the greater public by using publication bans. This is a lovely sentiment, but it is contrary to the course of justice.
When a crime is committed, it is not only the victim who has been abused, but the whole of society. We put laws in place for the safety and security of us all. The full weight of the coercive power of the state is used to investigate crime and prosecute the accused. For this reason, special legal procedures are observed to ensure that the accused rights have been fully observed. It needs to been shown to the public that justice, from both society's and the accused's standpoints, has been done.
For this reason, court cases are public procedings. The facts entered into evidence are public knowledge. A publication ban doesn't change this, it merely prevents the greater public from access to knowledge that it would be privy to if it had access to the courtroom. The public nature of a trial is unfortunate from the viewpoint of the victims, their friends and families, but it is necessary if justice is to be seen to be done. The knee-jerk use of publication bans is contrary to this principle.
Please note too that the courts have no problem with the pre-trial publication of details about the accused if the victim is an adult, even though a core tenet of the law is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. A stock broker charged with fraud, for instance, has a stain on his reputation that he can never be free from, regardless of whether he's found guilty or not. But it is in the public's interest to know who he is, as part of the course of justice.
Crimes committed against children by their parents or legal guardians are among the worst crimes that a person can commit - the violation of society's most helpless by those they are supposed to trust the most. It is a perverse and ironic twist that a person convicted of such a crime has more anonymity than those found not guilty of lesser offences.
Let me begin by making my opinion clear: this is a preposterous perversion of the intent of these regulations, put in place to protect a child and now protecting the child's murderer. There is absolutely no benefit to the child in keeping his/her identity a secret - there can be no stigma attached to it's future, because it has none. The people who write these regulations really need to give their heads a shake, and rethink this, and make the necessary changes to ensure this doesn't happen again. Protecting the privacy of a dead child benefits no one except the perpetrator (should he be found guilty).
The trend in Canadian courts in the past decade or so (since Karla Homolka's trial, really) is to try to protect the victims and their families by keeping the more prurient aspects of the case away from the greater public by using publication bans. This is a lovely sentiment, but it is contrary to the course of justice.
When a crime is committed, it is not only the victim who has been abused, but the whole of society. We put laws in place for the safety and security of us all. The full weight of the coercive power of the state is used to investigate crime and prosecute the accused. For this reason, special legal procedures are observed to ensure that the accused rights have been fully observed. It needs to been shown to the public that justice, from both society's and the accused's standpoints, has been done.
For this reason, court cases are public procedings. The facts entered into evidence are public knowledge. A publication ban doesn't change this, it merely prevents the greater public from access to knowledge that it would be privy to if it had access to the courtroom. The public nature of a trial is unfortunate from the viewpoint of the victims, their friends and families, but it is necessary if justice is to be seen to be done. The knee-jerk use of publication bans is contrary to this principle.
Please note too that the courts have no problem with the pre-trial publication of details about the accused if the victim is an adult, even though a core tenet of the law is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. A stock broker charged with fraud, for instance, has a stain on his reputation that he can never be free from, regardless of whether he's found guilty or not. But it is in the public's interest to know who he is, as part of the course of justice.
Crimes committed against children by their parents or legal guardians are among the worst crimes that a person can commit - the violation of society's most helpless by those they are supposed to trust the most. It is a perverse and ironic twist that a person convicted of such a crime has more anonymity than those found not guilty of lesser offences.
posted by Marty at 10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home