Names and addresses of suspects? They're necessary
I got an e-mail from the wife of a teacher at Grimsley High School wondering why we had published the street addresses of the teenagers arrested at the school last week. She said students had asked him in class about it. The students thought it infringed on the teenagers' right to privacy.
The same day, our publisher took a call from a woman who wondered the same thing, saying that it set the students up for retaliation. She accused us of including the addresses only because the students are African American.
We publish the names and addresses of people arrested in every case we write about unless they are minors. (We have made exceptions when identifying someone arrested for a sex crime -- say, a father -- ends up identifying the victim as well.) We don't do this to embarrass those arrested, although I suppose it has that effect. The addresses of people arrested are part of the public record, and they aren't difficult to get. That is to say anyone interested can get them.
We publish addresses to more precisely identify those arrested. More than one person can have the same name. It's safer for everyone to identify people with names and addresses. Two weeks ago, we published a story last month about a Greensboro man charged with first-degree murder. His name? John Robinson. I can tell you that I'm glad we published his address. (His photo helped distinguish him from me, too.)
We hear the retaliation argument every so often. We've never seen evidence that anyone has read information in the newspaper and used it to get revenge, though. Perhaps because those who would retaliate aren't newspaper readers. Perhaps because that kind of thing just doesn't happen much. In any case, students at Grimsley didn't need the newspaper to tell them which students had gotten arrested. They already knew. Their names and addresses are in the school directory. It was hardly a secret.
Race doesn't enter into the picture, either. We didn't mention the race of the Grimsley students, and I couldn't tell you whether they are black, white or green. It's not always about race.
Public Editor Ted Vaden at the N&O takes on a similar subject.
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The OTHER John Robinson has a mustache, so that makes two distinguishing features; mustache and murder. (All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Yeah, I watch Cops!)
Posted on April 10, 2006 1:36 PM
I don't know if the lacrosse players at Duke are guilty and I'm the first person to say, "believe a woman who says she's raped." However, as evidence is (disclosed) leaked, it appears it might not be as clear-cut as we were led to believe by initial news reports. The result is that there's a nationwide backlash against the team and the University, and maybe even the city.
Parallel? Being arrested doesn't make you guilty. That isn't how it works (I think we still have a working Bill of Rights, but am not sure all 10 of the big ones are still in working order). By offering addresses so easily when it would take more work to find them ourselves, you do help indict specific individuals who are, at the moment, merely charged.
I dislike the N&R policy of publishing the names of victims of non-sex crimes (although rape is not a crime of sex, I am OK with the privacy thing). Victims don't need to be publicized, IMO.
So publishing addresses of arrested people as policy might use a little rethinking. How about publishing the details of the convicted instead?
Posted on April 10, 2006 5:20 PM
Hope you have seen the DNA by now.I opened my self to some wagers on Doug Clarks blog. Had no takers, HOT DOG DA was enough to convince me, no rape occurred. The election was what he was working on, a good DA would NEVER go on tv with his case. A good news paper would get off of their butts and print facts not opinions.That goes for TV and radio to. I do pray how ever that someone will get the real facts on this.
Posted on April 10, 2006 7:00 PM
Well, Sue, let's play that out. I don't know that any of the lacrosse team members names have been in the press...certainly not in our paper. No one has been arrested on the team, for this incident at least.
So, on the Grimsley case, why not publish the addresses? I wouldn't think you're protecting the kids, unless you don't publish their names either. No, they aren't guilty, but they have been charged with a crime. Should we not print the names of those arrested until they've been convicted. Think of how O.J.'s life would be different.
Posted on April 10, 2006 8:52 PM
Playing it out a bit more, I was OK with publishing the names of the arrested; just not their addresses. You posited that addresses were easy enough to find; not really. Most people wouldn't go that extra mile. Grimsley student & name would have been enough, I think. Kids who are old enough are not protected -- they are adults, at least in the eyes of the law (but Justice is blind, no?). I figure that you could identify them recognizably enough without their home addresses (it indicts their families in a manner of speaking). Names yes. Addresses? After they're convicted.
Posted on April 10, 2006 9:14 PM
Addresses are a necessary evil. If we're going to say that someone has been arrested in connection with a crime, then we need to identify them as closely as we can. It's libel law 101.
I have a common enough name that I've been confused in the past with other people. So say the News & Record reported that Jonathan D. Jones, 28, of High Point was arrested in connection with a murder. Well, that wouldn't be good enough. Why? Because it is possible there are two 28-year-old Jonathan D. Joneses in High Point.
It happened to me a few years ago when a guy with the exact same name and a birthdate three days different from mine didn't pay his child support in my hometown. The cops came looking for me by mistake.
Had he committed a crime that was of greater public interest and it ended up in the paper, and he wasn't identified by address, well, I would've had a textbook libel case.
There are times when the police just don't have an address. In those cases, newspapers usually note it, but still run a small risk.
In your scenario, Sue, it's still not enough to just note the kid is a Grimsley student and use the name. It's possible, however unlikely, that you have two kids with the same name in the same high school. At mine, we had two Joe Johnsons. And I ran into three other Jonathan Joneses at the colleges I attended.
Posted on April 10, 2006 9:59 PM
OK, I see JJ's point. I don't like it, but I see his point.
Posted on April 11, 2006 7:02 AM
I had the police looking for another Scott Romine--not a typical name--in Greensboro who hadn't paid child support. It went on for years, and I probably had a dozen phone calls, letters, visits from cops, etc. Then when the guy died and a brief obit ran, everybody thought it was me. Boy, were they disappointed when they found out the truth.
Posted on April 12, 2006 1:41 PM
I feel like if you don't want your address in the paper STAY OUT OF TROUBLE!!!!
Posted on April 13, 2006 8:11 PM