Wednesday, July 30, 2003

In your reply to my editorial ("Father asks, Why subject family to yet more pain?") you reduce my complaint to the following: "This grieving father's solution would be to ignore and thus cover up from public view all those arrests and trials and thus deprive the taxpaying public of an account of their law enforcement agencies." You then say, "The real question is: Why should this case of admitted criminal activity be treated differently than all others?" I confess that I am not sure which "others" you have in mind. I was certainly not special pleading in my daughter's case. My complaint is a general one: I challenge your policy per se.

Some reports are genuinely newsworthy and of use to the public, even in graphic detail (though, perhaps, not quite as graphic as, say, your paper's rather salacious reporting of a recent bust of a Peachtree City massage parlor). Perhaps your editorial judgment regarding the relevance of detail could be guided by this question: Is this information worthy of a news story in its own right?

If, say, my daughter's crime is not worthy of a story, then what is gained by including her name and address alongside the details of the crime and the sentencing?

I argue that your readers would not have a diminished understanding of the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies were you to follow the example of other papers and report as follows: "A Fayetteville woman pleaded guilty to one felony count of cat juggling. She was sentenced to 90 hours community service and litter pan duty at the Fayette Shelter for Wayward Felines." (Well, perhaps this one would deserve the front page.)

Your current manner of reporting is a blunt instrument. In my daughter's particular case, your report included at once too much and too little information. The "too much" is the stuff of my argument, past and present. The "too little" refers to your failure to report that this young woman qualified for Georgia's first-time offender program. This is typically extended to (temporarily) stupid kids who have done stupid things, and for whom, in the judgment of the relevant authorities, the behavior is likely aberrant. Assuming satisfaction of all of the stipulations of probation, the conviction never becomes a part of the offender's permanent records.

One may vainly hope for a similar erasure effect upon the collective memories of your readers. Since you have insisted upon reporting the crime, I would at least have wished for people to learn that, in all likelihood, she acted out of character. But, blunt instrument that it is, your section systematically excludes such detail. And, like other blunt instruments, it serves as an effective bludgeon.

Name withheld by request

[The editor replies: This is a compelling argument, if one takes the point of view only of the offender or of the offender's friends and relatives. Obviously, however, other compelling interests must be considered and balanced.

One such interest, of course, is the state's, acting through law enforcement and the criminal justice system on behalf of "the people." We presume that no one seriously challenges the right, even the necessity, of the state to enforce its laws and to act to apprehend and bring to the bar of justice even first offenders who break the laws of the state.

A third interest is not institutional, as the state is, but rather collective. That is "the people" as individuals and as a group who have compelling interests in being protected from lawbreakers and in seeing that justice is done in individual incidents.

I don't know what this young lady did, but let's suppose she stole a golf cart, wrecked it and was caught. It was a stupid, first-ever act on her part, as her family and friends agree. Now suppose that I owned the golf cart that she stole. My interest is multi-fold.

I suffered loss from her unlawful act. I want to see her punished for her action and restitution made to me, the one who was hurt by her stupid act. I also want her taught an unmistakable lesson so that she will never again steal my property. I want peace of mind from fear that my property is at risk from her. I want to see her sorry that she hurt me.

Let's try the "worthy of a story" test on me: Is there worth in my knowing who stole my cart and what happened to her before a judge? I think few would argue this point.

Others in my circle of neighbors and friends also have multiple interests, having to do with the security of their property, their neighborhood and their investments as well as their personal safety. They want to know that the particular person who violated all their interests was punished and deterred from again threatening their interests.

Now the "worthy" test: Should neighbors and similarly situated cart owners know who did this deed and what happened to her? I say yes, insofar as they desire to know.

And being human, all of us want to know the identity of the particular individual who did this thing that hurt some of us and threatened many of us. We did nothing to harm her, but she heedlessly harmed us. For this she should be deterred and shamed.

Ah, shame. An underrated consequence of bad choices and one that an offender has no legal or God-given right to avoid.

Modern society has placed such importance on the "right" of privacy that even those who transgress society's laws now feel they have a right to be shielded from eyes prying into their transgressions.

How about the "worthiness" test here? This is the very essence of jailhouse wisdom: Do the crime, do the time. One who breaks a law must expect public exposure as a consequence.

I disagree that a youthful offender should expect privacy when she breaks a law. I think that perhaps the virtue most missing from 21st century American life is precisely that sense of shame for having done shameful things. The capacity for shame in an individual is perhaps the most civilizing tool that any society has at its disposal in its quest to remain civilized.

I'm a father also, and I've had a child's name show up on the front page in unfortunate circumstances. I understand the feeling a parent has to shield a child from further hurt. But we disagree on what follows that feeling.

My unswerving response would be to put my child's name on the front page again should the same circumstances arise. What I would do to my own child, I have no qualms about doing to your child.

Since the law historically agrees with this position in favor of disclosure of lawbreakers, and since I believe society's larger interests are much more compelling for full disclosure as against secrecy, and since newspapers exist to disclose that which is out of the ordinary and against the norm, I again respectfully but empathetically disagree.]