Post Gazette wants trial of boy open to public

[McNuggetsMan]

A 11 year old boy killed his father's pregnant fiancee. He was initially charged as an adult but then it was changed to a juvenile. The PG is arguing that the public needs to know how the decision was reached, not just the result of the decision.

I understand that the public is very interested in this trial, but does it really serve the public interest to open the trial? It seems like this is more of a freak show factor than any real compelling public interest.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11266/1176996-100.stm

 

[93Devil]

My first thought is to think the boy might be MR, Autistic or Special Ed in some way.

I could see the police not looking at that when the initial charge was given.

 

[sgreenwell]

I'm kind of surprised that they're actually going through with a trial of an 11-year-old. No plea deal?

 

[Rhody31]

There's a trial going on in RI with a mother who killed her 8-year old daughter. They're allowing a pool photographer in, but no TV.
Local radio guy is going nuts about it. I was listening to him the other day and it's apparent he's a media *****. He was screaming about how he's been e-mailing Nancy Grace about the case and how the public deserves to see the trial. It sounds like he just wants it on TV so when national pundits need someone to talk to, they go to him. He's done it with other in-state news.

 

[Point of Order]

No.

 

[sgreenwell]

There's a trial going on in RI with a mother who killed her 8-year old daughter. They're allowing a pool photographer in, but no TV.
Local radio guy is going nuts about it. I was listening to him the other day and it's apparent he's a media *****. He was screaming about how he's been e-mailing Nancy Grace about the case and how the public deserves to see the trial. It sounds like he just wants it on TV so when national pundits need someone to talk to, they go to him. He's done it with other in-state news.

If it's who I'm thinking of, JD, he also had a great habit of spouting completely made up **** on Twitter. This was especially fun before the hurricane, since I wasted 30 minutes debunking some of his crap.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

A 11 year old boy killed his father's pregnant fiancee. He was initially charged as an adult but then it was changed to a juvenile. The PG is arguing that the public needs to know how the decision was reached, not just the result of the decision.

I understand that the public is very interested in this trial, but does it really serve the public interest to open the trial? It seems like this is more of a freak show factor than any real compelling public interest.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11266/1176996-100.stm

The P-G wants to know how the decision was reached ... I don't see a problem with that.

 

[93Devil]

But if the police say the child is retarded, then you are digging into the child's privacy.

 

[Ace]

It's in juvenile court. It should be closed.

 

[SkiptomyLou]

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

 

[Stitch]

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

Thanks for your opinion, Adam. You do know that victim's are not the plaintiff in criminal cases. It's either the "people of" or the "state or commonwealth of".

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

It's in juvenile court. It should be closed.

Why? Just because he's a juvenile? I don't think that's enough of a reason; not with the killer in question and his crime.
The kid has already been indentified. If he's retarded or has anger-management issues I think it might actually help to have that explained in the press rather then shoved under the judicial rug of a juvenile case.
Otherwise you have people thinking the kid is just Grade-A ****ed up, w/o any circumstances or background.

I think many of the juvenile laws in the states have become arcane, due to the savage crimes of many kids under the age of 18, 16, 15, 13 (insert age here)...

 

[Machine Head]

Can we stop using the word "retarded"

"It's insulting, it's painful and it hurts people," said actor Eddie Barbanell, who has Down syndrome and appeared in the movie "The Ringer." "Get that word out! End the word! Bury it!"

While "retard" itself was never a medical term, it derives from the phrase "mental retardation," which by around 1900 was commonly used by scientists and doctors, said Peter Berns, executive director of The Arc of the United States, a nonprofit advocate for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Even though Berns said its pejorative connotation was established in the 1960s, the phrase "mental retardation" is still used in many state and federal laws, much to the dismay of those trying to stamp out its use.

"People with intellectual disabilities themselves really mounted a movement that they did not want to be referred to with the word 'retarded,'" he said.

As such, the American Association of Mental Retardation changed its name in 2007 to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities after its members pleaded for the organization to do so. In another sign that the formal use of the term "mentally retarded" had lost currency, The Associated Press replaced it in its stylebook in 2008 with "mentally disabled."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29981699/ns/us_news-life/t/special-olympics-fights-use-word-retard/

Not picking a fight, and I'm moving on. Just sayin'.

 

[Ace]

It's in juvenile court. It should be closed.

Why? Just because he's a juvenile? I don't think that's enough of a reason; not with the killer in question and his crime.
The kid has already been indentified. If he's retarded or has anger-management issues I think it might actually help to have that explained in the press rather then shoved under the judicial rug of a juvenile case.
Otherwise you have people thinking the kid is just Grade-A ****ed up, w/o any circumstances or background.

I think many of the juvenile laws in the states have become arcane, due to the savage crimes of many kids under the age of 18, 16, 15, 13 (insert age here)...

Yes, because he's a juvenile and it has been determined that the case should be handled in juvenile court. Those cases are closed to the public and should either all be closed or all open.

You can't pick and choose -- oh, that's an interesting juvenile case -- let us bring our cameras into court!

 

[93Devil]

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

Like Watergate?

 

[SkiptomyLou]

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

Like Watergate?

Public figures are exceptions. Everybody else should have private trials

 

[Ace]

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

Like Watergate?

Public figures are exceptions. Everybody else should have private trials

I agree with Skippy.

And further, I think booking shots should not be sent willy nilly through the internet unless they get some of those folks from Glamour Shots to let you try on a few nice outfits and jazz them up!

 

[SkiptomyLou]

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

Like Watergate?

Public figures are exceptions. Everybody else should have private trials

I agree with Skippy.

And further, I think booking shots should not be sent willy nilly through the internet unless they get some of those folks from Glamour Shots to let you try on a few nice outfits and jazz them up!

I don't think mug shots should be released period either. I imagine people wouldn't want potential employers to see those.

 

[Ace]

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

Like Watergate?

Public figures are exceptions. Everybody else should have private trials

I agree with Skippy.

And further, I think booking shots should not be sent willy nilly through the internet unless they get some of those folks from Glamour Shots to let you try on a few nice outfits and jazz them up!

I don't think mug shots should be released period either. I imagine people wouldn't want potential employers to see those.

Perhaps you might consider not committing a crime.

 

[fishwrapper]

Collection of details post-trial and covering a trial are two pretty different things.
(This thread notwithstanding. Trials of juveniles should be closed.)