🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2p29fi$kjg@Tandem.CAM.ORG>,
Robert Galambos <galambo@CAM.ORG> wrote:
>Gordon H. Buchan (buchang@CAM.ORG) wrote:
>
>: I think the point here is that basic freedoms like the press and 
>: communications should be suspended very sparingly - like when you're 
>: talking about military enemies and stuff.

An unrelated news story broke in Toronto last week.  There was a
murder--front page news.  One of the newspapers broke a story that the police
department had issued a confidential bulletin to other police.  That
newspaper got vilified by other media outlets and by many calls to that
newspaper's ombudsman for having potentially helped the people the police
were trying to track down.

Questions: Having obtained information which might impede a police
investigation is the press always justified in publishing it?  Is the
press justified in printing the names of victims of crime, even if
printing the name may cause more harm to the victim (e.g. rape cases).
We could also ask: Does the public right to know mean that the police always
have to tell you every detail of every investigation?  Once they arrest
someone, must the crown release every detail of the case to the public before
it comes to trail?  Once the crown releases the information to the defense,
is the public entitled to know the details too?

We are all for freedom of the press--but please define it.

>lets get one thing straight here, we are talking about the right of an 
>indi. (teale) to get a fair trial vs the right of the public, to get the 
>'dirt'

I think it is worthwhile to point out more of the rights involved:
- the right of the public to know the right person has been caught.  Many
  people were traumatized when the murders occurred and radically altered
  their life because of fear.  People worried for their lives and that of
  their loved ones escorted kids to school, stopped jogging, etc.  These
  people have a right to know the perpetrator of these crimes has been caught.
  In a very real sense, peoples liberty and freedom is curtailed until
  the information is available for them to see and challenge.

- the right of the public to know that justice was served on Karla Homolka.
  For example, if there was a "deal" between the crown and Karla's lawyers,
  the public will want to know that Karla is not getting away with murder.
  Justice must be seen to occur.

- the right of the public for unbiased justice when Paul's trail begins.

- the various rights of the jury which will be chosen for Paul's trail.
  Notice that the members of the jury are not volunteers.  Sequestering
  amounts to taking away of the freedom and liberty of a group
  of people chosen randomly.

- the right of the accused to full disclosure of the crown's case before the
  trail, and for access to the crown's witnesses before the trail.

- there are others.

These rights conflict to various degrees and require a balance to be struck.
It is certainly possible to change the balance, but care should be taken
at the time of the change to make sure nothing falls through the cracks.

>: Allowing any judge in Canada to impose a sweeping ban on publications, 
>: and ruining Canada's international reputation (we've gone from being 
>: peacekeepers to a banana republic that censors foreign publications) is 
>: stupid. The only excuses that I have heard are procedural, for the 
>: convenience of the Crown Prosecutor's office. "It would be too difficult 
>: to sequester a jury, etc., " just doesn't cut it. 

First of all, I think its fair to point out that the "ban" only applies
until the start of Paul's trail.  There has been considerable debate in 
the newspapers, radio, and TV about how much the public's right to know
is affected by deferring publication of these details for months.

As for sequestering juries, there are other issues.
Consider one of the trails resulting from the Rodney King case;
based on vague news reports I get the impression that the sequestered
jury nearly came to blows.  I ask: what was the effect on jury members from
being involunatarily denied access to their families?  what was the affect
on jury members in being confined with a bunch of strangers?  What was the
affect on the rights and freedoms of the jury members?  What was the affect
on the kind of decision the jury came to?

You don't mention jury selection, but this is another technique used in some
systems to weed out those who are pre-disposed or influenced.  However, this
too is not the perfect answer.  Particularly once the prosecution and
accused are each allowed to have jury selection experts, there is a
perception that this turns into a game of selecting a sympathetic jury.


You also didn't mention that a ban could have been avoided had Karla's
trail been delayed until that of her husband.  With no trail, there would
not have been information, and there would not be any reason for a ban.
Of course, this approach would have taken away the public's right to
seeing speedy justice and Karla's right to having her case resolved in
a timely fashion.

So ... what approach are you advocating?