Given how heavily and uncritically the initial theory of a homeless/lower class person as the killer was promoted (not least of all here on HN), I think it made a lot of sense to reveal that the actual suspect now arrested worked in the tech industry and was acquainted with the victim.
Beyond that, it's nor clear to me that revealing the actual name or other personal details of the suspect serves a legitimate purpose of advancing justice or society; however, it is not out of keeping with journalistic practice in other criminal cases in California. Suspects' names get printed in newspapers for far lower profile crimes all the time.
I can see some benefit in that potential witnesses might be more likely to come forward. If I hear of a terrible crime and it turns out my neighbor was arrested for it I might potentially have some valuable information to contribute. I'm still not sure if it's a good thing though.
What a terrible comparison. There is a massive difference between identifying someone who has been charged and randomly naming brown people the killer.
In this example there is enough evidence the suspect has been arrested by police, which is a public record. Not remotely the same as the Boston bomber reddit-misidentification case.
It is every bit the same and every bit as shitty a metric. Remember Richard Jewell?
The man's only crime was being the first person to find a live bomb and help people escape it before it then detonated and killed 100+ others. The fucker was a literal goddamn hero.
But then the media implied he was a sad loser rent-a-cop who planted a bomb so he could find it and pretend to be someone important for a day. It was absolutely depraved, and that's before the FBI started harassing him.
But hey, all's fair for anyone named as a suspect by law enforcement. They always get it right the first time around. Everyone who gets arrested is later convicted. They always kick down the right door before sending the SWAT team in.
I agree, but we can't only have this discussion when someone wealthy is implicated in a crime. On any other given day the SF carceral brigade is out for blood. Just recently a prominent person was talking about bringing back lynching. So when they suddenly start waxing on about the rights of the suspects, we should absolutely press them on their change of heart.
I agree with you too, but don't think holding politicians to their lies or fixating on class warfare is really the most pressing part of the situation. He's calling for lynchings because he knows there's a receptive audience for it.
That's the part you should be most worried about, because a mob so empowered could just as easily turn its gaze to you. Good luck trying to be a nuisance to that prominent person once the mob gets a taste for blood. Before participating in doxxing frenzies or lynch mobs, nobody ever stops and thinks "what if this guy didn't actually do it?"
No expansion of the carceral state required, we'll just deputize an angry mob to play the part of Executioner.
I guess, but I see this all as connected. The person (Michelle Tandler, if you’re wondering) wasn't calling for lynching because she knew she’d get clicks. She was doing it because she thinks police are breaking the social contract: she’s a wealthy white woman, cops exist to make her feel comfortable by violently subjugating poor Black and brown people, and they’re not doing it enough for her.
So yes, vigilante justice is bad, mobs are bad. But crime is also a social construct. We literally decide what is and is not illegal - aka what is and is not “vigilante justice” — and I don’t think it’s necessarily worse to find yourself in the crosshairs of an angry mob than the crosshairs of a cabal of bloodthirsty tech execs aiming the state’s monopoly on violence at you.
> I agree, but we can't only have this discussion when someone wealthy is implicated in a crime.
We don't.
If you're serious about this, you're also responsible for not pushing for doxing of random suspects. You can't argue that there are good witch hunts and bad witch hunts.
In Germany it's not public, nor are you allowed to publish the name of a person arrested. This is to protect the individual's privacy and shield them from public retribution and prejudice, which I think is a far more enlightened stance.
In America, the stigma of an arrest follows you for the rest of your life.
I agree, especially pre-trial. I disagree post-trial. When a judgement has been made "in the name of the people", the people should be able to know the name.
But forever? Shouldn't a person who does wrong have the option to actually make things right? Should a mistake somebody makes at a young age follow them until their death, even if they have gone through the actual judicial punishment? If there's no way for them to ever "make things right" in the eyes of society, it doesn't leave many choices - which is a big contributor to the high rates of repeat criminals.
I don't think you can "make right" a murder. You can be punished for it, but that doesn't absolve you of the deed, and it shouldn't force others to forgive or accept you.
Yes, it's a tough deal, but let's be honest here: it's nothing compared to what they do to their victims. And there's really very few cases per decade that will make you a nation-wide celebrity. For the most part, moving 50km away will for all intents and purposes make you "a new man".
You can often attain forgiveness by showing regret. Many don't, which is why they aren't forgiven, and aren't happily accepted by society when they get released. Who could blame them? And why should we help them wash away their sins and treat it as a secret?
I also don't buy the excuse that recidivism is significantly driven by rejection from society. It's the easy way to explain your behavior when truth and reflection would paint a different picture, but one that's harder to accept: that we're responsible for our deeds, and (yes, with some super specific exceptions) nobody made us do them.
> You can be punished for it, but that doesn't absolve you of the deed, and it shouldn't force others to forgive or accept you.
Sure, people don't have to forgive you. But why stop at murder? Why not publish every bad thing a person does, so everyone can freely choose whether to forgive you or not? How do we decide what to publish, and what not?
> Yes, it's a tough deal, but let's be honest here: it's nothing compared to what they do to their victims.
Definitely, we don't have to compare "damage" or anything, the victims are obviously the worst off. But the question is: what is the purpose of life-long punishment? Just to make us feel warm and fuzzy that the bad people have it bad, without any consideration for the effect this has on them and consequently us?
> And there's really very few cases per decade that will make you a nation-wide celebrity. For the most part, moving 50km away will for all intents and purposes make you "a new man".
That doesn't matter in the slightest in our digital age. No matter where you go, no matter what you do, everyone around you can quickly find out what you've done if it's public information. Literally, if you told me your name, I could tell you in a couple of minutes. And this happens regularly, and is spread throughout social circles, meaning that once "the lid is off" you'll have to move another 50km to have another calm couple of weeks.
> You can often attain forgiveness by showing regret. Many don't, which is why they aren't forgiven, and aren't happily accepted by society when they get released.
How many? Is this based on statistics, or on a feeling?
> I also don't buy the excuse that recidivism is significantly driven by rejection from society. It's the easy way to explain your behavior when truth and reflection would paint a different picture, but one that's harder to accept: that we're responsible for our deeds, and (yes, with some super specific exceptions) nobody made us do them.
Actually, you're taking the easy route. Putting everything on personal responsibility removes any responsibility from you for the decision to punish them for life, and consequently the actions they take due to your decision. It's nice that you don't buy the excuse, but studies show time and time again that this is a big factor, especially if you compare the American legal system with more developed nations.
So you're making decisions for which we know there will be bad consequences, but your hands are clean, since you didn't do it directly! But usually people develop past this view of morality and recognize that you're not just responsible for what you do directly, but also for what your decisions lead to.
I don't know how other countries handle this, but I learned a few years ago, somewhat to my surprise, that Switzerland has in some cases provided a high profile murderer with a new identity after they served their sentence, precisely so they could go on with their life: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günther_Tschanun
if a politician is arrested on corruption charges, are you not allowed to name them? or if someone's spouse is arrested for their murder, you can't disclose it? or that the suspect is, say, a tech worker rather than a homeless person? how can you possibly cover high-profile crimes if you're not allowed to disclose facts about the suspects?
In America most people are never declared guilty by a judge, they get held in jail until they give up and agree to the prosecutor declaring them guilty instead.
Juries, not judges, declare people guilty in the US. Prosecutors don't declare people guilty either; what you're talking about is people taking a plea bargain and pleading guilty. Bail reform can help take the pressure off of people to falsely confess to get out of jail, and we need more of it.
that exposes quite a lot more information than I expected, given OP's description of how the privacy laws work. it includes the suspects' ages, backgrounds and (very distinctive) first names. it took me a mere second to find their full names by Googling - there's not many 71-year old noblemen named "Heinrich XIII"!
so I guess it's a figleaf? good for them, I guess?
It’s fundamental to the principles of habeas corpus that the overwhelming power of the government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison someone be wielded in broad daylight.
The UK is a good example of a generally* similarly free country without guaranteed public access to arrest records. This balances the potential benefit to the public from knowing against the definite harm to the accused.
(*There are definitely significant ways each is less free than the other and there's no rigorous way to say which is worse)
I think the person you're replying to is saying that:
- If a government arrests someone, it should be forced to acknowledge both that it happened AND give the reason for arrest
- Media should have the right to report on arrests, without interference from the government.
This protects from abuses of power against for example political opponents. Of course, these same laws make arrests for common crimes problematic for the people being arrested. And I don't think it is feasible to codify an objective line between the two.
Yes, it's a balance. I don't want my government hustling people into vans and disappearing, but I don't want minor indiscretions to become media-amplified scarlet letters, either.
A reasoned discussion begins with an acknowledgment that the public has a right to monitor its government, and that individuals have a right to privacy. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act substantially dimmed the sunlight on government law-enforcement activity, and the Dobbs decision severely weakened privacy as an emergent constitutional right.
Edit: As I was writing this reply, I came up with an interesting legal theory. The right to publicity is traditionally understood as a celebrity's right to control the commercialization of his or her image. Might we say that the modern attention economy has turned everyone into a potential celebrity, and thus that everyone should be allowed to control the commercial publicity of their persona? This would draw a potentially meaningful line between the public's right to know (which I expect is popular) and the media's right to commercially exploit the salacious details of an accused's crime (which is, sadly, extremely popular; otherwise, it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today). I'm sure attorneys and legal scholars have already explored this idea.
People get arrested, their name smeared, presumed guilty, and then go to trial and it wasn't them. Lives get ruined over for crimes not committed.
IIRC, Israel doesn't publish arrests, just convictions. So it's not a new idea.
Florida's "sunshine law" mandates arrests be public record, and it's lead everyone to believe there's more crazy people in Florida than anywhere else, which just isn't true.
Sure we shouldn't have black sites where people just get nabbed and disappeared either, but "guilty until proven innocent" is just a fancy idea if your life gets ruined before the trial. Look at what happened to Rittenhouse. Kicked out of his college and then "not guilty on all counts" at trial. It's a miscarriage of justice.
1. Police secretly arrest people and toss them in jail never to be heard of again
2. People are erroneously arrested, there name is publicly attached to a crime through a bunch of reporting, then they're released before trial or found not guilty
The first is fairly clear, the 2nd is a problem because being released is generally not news, so google search or whatever forever links the persons name to a crime they didn't do. Then you have a bunch of humanisms: the person the lawyered there way out of the crime, or "they must have been involved otherwise why would they be arrested", etc. So there is a permanent cost to being publicly arrested for something you didn't do even if justice happens and you don't ever see court. That's why you some times see people in the judicial system releasing "this person is absolutely innocent" type press releases.
It's hard to believe that you're not aware the name is published by the police following an arrest, which was almost certainly the subject of a warrant application.
What? What has the race and the finances have to do with anything? He's not white, he's of Iranian descent I believe. The LinkedIn is still online. Even tho I disagree with doxing someone that might turn out not to be the victim.
