How Fair Is The "Perp Walk"?
Remember those guilty as hell Duke lacrosse players...who actually ended up not being guilty...after being practically burned at the cross by everyone from higher-ups at their university to the international press?
There's supposed to be trial by jury in this country, but it's gotten to the point where there's a trial by press first when police parade some person accused of a crime before the cameras.
Andrew Cohen, writing in The Atlantic, feels the French were right to deem this an abuse of justice, vis a vis the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. Cohen writes:
Of all the discordant notes that have been sounded since the arrest last week of former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the most disappointing may have come from Michael Bloomberg. Of the now famous "perp walk" of the world's most famous rape suspect, the mayor of New York City said: "I think it is humiliating, but you know if you don't want to do the perp walk, don't do the crime." Then, perhaps sensing that he had gone too far in prematurely adjudging Strauss-Kahn guilty, the mayor added: "The real sad thing is if someone is accused and does the perp walk and turns out not to be guilty, then society really ought to look in the mirror."
Cohen calls the perp walk "the result of one of the most cynical conspiracies in all of modern-day criminal justice":
It is an officially-sanctioned and eternally re-enacted plot between the media and the police, the overt act of which benefits both parties -- and prosecutors as well -- at the expense of the suspect. It is done so flawlessly and routinely now that hardly anyone in America even realizes anymore how prejudicial and unfair it is to a defendant. We simply take it for granted today that the public image of a presumedly innocent person can lawfully be manipulated by the government and its agents. That's why so many of us were so surprised when the French expressed outrage over the way Strauss-Kahn was treated after his arrest. Sometimes, it takes an outsider to see clearly the truth.The police naturally have an interest in publicly displaying their fruits of their labor -- a suspect who looks guilty, as we all would if marched about in handcuffs after sleepless hours in detention -- and the media naturally have an interest in publishing the images they receive from the walks. (If I had a dollar for every time a perp walk was broadcast on television B-roll over the past 15 years I can tell you flatly that I wouldn't be sitting here writing this column). At fault are both the law enforcement officials who arrange to "walk the perp" at a specific time and place -- there is a reason the cameras are almost always there, folks -- and the reporters and producers who endlessly replay the images and take convenient cover under the First Amendment's free press rights. They use the First Amendment as a putative shield, even as they use the images themselves as a sword that cuts deeply into the Sixth Amendment fair trial rights of the accused.
You're right, Amy! We should be ashamed of ourselves for our condemnation of O. J. Simpson and Michael Jackson, for instance, when it turns out that they were both innocent!
Patrick at July 11, 2011 12:40 AM
There's a place for people to be determined guilty, and that's in a court of law.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 12:54 AM
Amy, what would you suggest we do about this? I mean, in a way that doesn't encroach upon our personal freedoms?
Patrick at July 11, 2011 1:16 AM
The perp walk is prejudicial. If people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty (and justice is supposed to be blind), parading someone in handcuffs for media cameras should be avoided. It should be avoided in the interests of justice.
As for how it can be diminished (at least to some degree)? Tinted car windows and bringing suspects into a garage -- not viewable by the public -- that leads to the 'booking area'.
As far as infringing on rights, it's a stretch to believe that someone in the process of having their basic rights completely stripped (and quite possibly unjustly so) needs that done in public view. In almost all cases, the the arrest record to the court transcript will be available to the public. This will include the "mug shot". In the case of well known defendants, available shots identifying the defendant will not be hard to come by.
Sadly, the appalling Duke sham prosecution is not some outlandish occurrence. And at the root of that sham is one of the reasons for the perp walk. And the reason has absolutely NOTHING to do with justice.
TW at July 11, 2011 4:37 AM
TW, I see...and how do propose we get them to this garage where they can't be seen? Ask them nicely? Surely being approached by a cop, who leads you away, will be sufficient for nosy people to know what's going on.
I don't see how you can change this in a reasonable way.
Patrick at July 11, 2011 5:04 AM
I will not be lectured to by the French on any fucking topic.
• Not Food
• Not Sexuality
• And certainly, certainly CERTAINLY not justice.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 11, 2011 5:36 AM
I think the MSM is a joke. Then again, the MSM is pandering to societal norms, which are also a joke. That said, on the heels of an acquittal in a highly publicized case, it seems that maybe not all uses of the First Amendment as a putative shield actually cuts deeply into Sixth Amendment rights.
mk at July 11, 2011 5:37 AM
"on the heels of an acquittal" - I don't think this was an acquittal(not the DSK one, maybe u are reffering to the CA one). The DSK one was a dropping of all charges by the state even before the case was heard.
The perp walk is crap and the institutions that support it are also crap(MSM, police and politicians). The only way out is to make the media publish apologies which are as long as the accusations in the same column spaces(for written media - so the apology will cover the entire half of the first page instead of some 2 lines at the bottom left corner of page 10) or play apologies for as long as they play the images of the perp walk(for video media - imagine...CNN apologizing repeatedly for days and days at the headline of every hour and hours and hours of detailed apologies) and probably make them compensate the person who they accuse repeatedly(maybe like a $100k for every 5 minutes of accusation or $50k for every 2 inches of column space on page 1)
Redrajesh at July 11, 2011 5:48 AM
I have no problem with this whatsoever. People are going to have to be handcuffed when arrested, and they have to be moved places. The media is going to be there at least some of the time. No logical and inexpensive way to avoid this, or reason to.
I haven't seen one in years, as I haven't watched the news in years. Probably since 2001. Don't like perp walks? Let the tv stations know, and don't watch them. Easy. Or is Amy thinking we need gov't to get involved in this....
momof4 at July 11, 2011 5:51 AM
Plus any non reporting of contradictory facts by the media should be grounds for contempt of rights of the accused.
Maybe there can even be a limit on the amount of column space or airtime that can be devoted to coverage of any such case. Maybe 1 column centimetre per year or 5 minutes in a year. Plus put restrictions on the media to report 1 case which is the other way round for every such case that is reported(like 1 case of false accusation with picture and profiel of the accuser for every such accusation)
Redrajesh at July 11, 2011 5:54 AM
What many of the folks disagreeing with Amy do not realize is that perp walks are not accidental / inevitable - where the press HAPPENS to catch a view of a suspect being led into the court house of the jail.
The police, and/or the DA INTENTIONALLY call the media and specify the time and place...and park their cars so as to maximize the distance that the suspects will walk and be visible.
This is self-dealing - the police and DA both have an interest in making themselves look like heroes, and they are the ones deciding whether an as-yet innocent-in-the-eyes-of-the-law person is paraded like a 4-H animal in front of the papparazi.
As long as you're asking the question "should CRIMINALS be paraded in front of the press?" you are asking the wrong question.
Ask this instead: If the police kicked in my door at 3am tonight, threw flashbangs into my house, and had some vague warrant for a no-knock raid, when you HAD NOT BEEN DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL, would you think that the police and the DA calling the newspapers and the TV stations to record your bleary handcuffed walk in a dirty t-shirt and sweat pants from a police car to a jail cell was a good idea, or would you argue that this was an infringement of your rights as an American - and as a human being?
TJIC at July 11, 2011 6:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/11/how_fair_is_the.html#comment-2345559">comment from momof4I think it's the police who need to do things differently. And if I remember correctly from when I lived in New York, not everybody gets paraded before a wolf-like press. When you think about throwing people to the wolves, think about those who are later deemed not guilty of the crimes.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:15 AM
I was making coffee in between starting to post and hitting "submit," and didn't see TJIC's post until after I posted. TJIC is exactly right:
And TJIC asks the right question:
And Crid, the French have a point. See TJIC above.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:28 AM
The Duke lacrosse players have yet to receive an apology from the 88 faculty members who signed that letter. Does anybody remember Richard Jewell and the Atlanta bombing? Oops, too bad. Sorry about your life, but the DA got his publicity and the paper got their story.
What would it cost us to treat the accused, but not proven guilty, fairly? You can't un-do this public parade.
Where does one go to get his reputation back?
I'm with Mr Cohen. It should be illegal.
MarkD at July 11, 2011 6:35 AM
> the French have a point
Postwar hairstyles usually covered it up.
Admiration for these rodents in inexplicable
Crid at July 11, 2011 6:37 AM
TJIC says it right: that might be you, or someone you know, being paraded in front of the cameras as the next...poker player? Gun owner? Illegal downloader? Whatever the crime of the day is.
The rules in countries with stronger privacy laws are clear: the press is free to report on arrests, however, names must not be used. If photographs are taken, identifiable details (faces, license plates, etc.) must be sufficiently blurred as to prevent recognition.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If half the potential jury members have already seen you paraded around in handcuffs, just how are you supposed to get a fair trial. If you are, in fact, innocent - and later released - what damage has been done to your reputation?
The points about Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson above are irrelevant. Justice must err on the side of innocence, and if you can't prove that the person committed the crime, then they are presumed to be innocent. Better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person land in jail.
bradley13 at July 11, 2011 7:02 AM
The French may be better at food than almost everybody else, but justice? Not so much. The sleazy little DSK would never have been arrested in France in the first place For those who are arrested, the burden of proof rests with the defense and the judges are an arm of the government. Besides, this outcome in the DSK case smells of the fix being in.
BarSinister at July 11, 2011 7:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/11/how_fair_is_the.html#comment-2345636">comment from BarSinisterThis isn't a case of America vs. the French, BarSinister, but what's fair.
There's no actual need to parade the accused before a gauntlet of press photographers -- it's a ploy by prosecutors and the police to add weight to their case...the weight of public opinion. The only "weight" should come from evidence in court.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 7:12 AM
I may agree. But if I may threadjack, I would first focus my attention on ridding police departments of the military-like attitude, tactics and weapons that have, quite indefensibly, become commonplace in our nation. Swat teams busting into residences is something that should occur with the frequency much less than it is today.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Some wags ask whether the number of dangerous suspects killed by SWAT teams exceed the number of innocent victims amd cops.
Spartee at July 11, 2011 8:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/11/how_fair_is_the.html#comment-2345784">comment from SparteeAgainst that, too, Spartee.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 8:56 AM
I'm not opposed to a well armed police force.
And in principle I'm not opposed to military tactics used by SWAT teams.
Those tactics are used because they are effective.
What tactics should be used when going after dangerous individuals in defensible positions? Bad ones?
But that said, they should be few in number and not used except with offenders proven to be particularly violent.
Robert at July 11, 2011 9:02 AM
The French? I don't trust them. At all. I can describe the totality of my suspicion towards all things French-approved with two little words.
Jerry.
Lewis.
'Nuff said.
LauraGr at July 11, 2011 10:30 AM
Yeah, but it's New York City. They always had the perp-walk. You gotta love it.
BOTU at July 11, 2011 11:51 AM
"The police, and/or the DA INTENTIONALLY call the media and specify the time and place...and park their cars so as to maximize the distance that the suspects will walk and be visible."
Of course they do. I repeat-so what? If people saw me being perp walked for something I was innocent of and they were part of my life, they would hear my side of the story. The rest-who cares?
And if you think the press isn't going to be sitting on well-known people who are under suspicion so they can catch the arrest, you are deluded. The cops don't always have to call. Nor do they often bother. Do you know how many people are arrested daily, even in a small city like austin? You see such a negligible percentage on tv, it's really not worth mentioning. You're more likely to be hit by lightning or killed by blue ice than have your arrest shown on tv, unless you are already a public figure.
momof4 at July 11, 2011 11:55 AM
I think I am the only guy who liked the movie "Bonfire of the Vanities", but it seems especially appropriate here. It's a political circus, and I agree that DSK's right to a fair trial is seriously compromised when he is shown as being guilty before the jury is even called.
Eric at July 11, 2011 1:54 PM
Momof4....even public figures are innocent until proven guilty.
Melody at July 11, 2011 3:16 PM
Public figure means you're in the public eye-arrest, wedding, whatever you do, tv will want to know about it and film it. I said nothing about guilty or not. As evidenced by a recent not-guilty verdict, everyone can "know" you are guilty-even GASP see you in handcuffs-and still not convict you. I think the system works just fine, if too lenient.
momof4 at July 11, 2011 4:37 PM
If we can't have a perp walk how are we going to assassinate the accused before the trial, either physically (Lee Oswald) or pre-judicially?
"Look everybody, the media has captured the guilty party! There he is! See how guilty he looks in his handcuffs and forlorn expression!"
This is the Nancy Grace approach to justice: guilty cuz I say so.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 11, 2011 4:42 PM
> the French have a point
They also have a self admitted and convicted child rapist they refuse to extradite
lujlp at July 11, 2011 4:53 PM
F. Lee Bailey famously argued for convicted murderer Sam Shepherd in the 1960s. When Bailey got nowhere arguing his case before state courts, he took it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled to overturn Shepherd's conviction of the 1954 murder. Bailey successfully argued that pre-trial publicity had jeopardized Shepherd's chance to receive a free trial. A precedent was set. In that case, it wasn't (to my knowledge) TV, but a Cleveland newspaper that ran a headline "Haul him in" before the police has finished the investigation.
I don't know what legal challenges (if any) have been made to perp walks in either state or federal courts. I rather doubt the US Supreme Court would rule against them. If any lawyers/ law students are reading this, perhaps someone knows. California gave, perhaps still gives, judges discretion on whether or not to allow trials to be televised. I doubt the Supremes would overrule televised trials, which provide far more publicity than perp walks. That, however, is a crude analogy, because before someone is tried the jury is selected.
Judge Lance Ito allowed O.J. Simpson's 1995 trial to be televised. That, IMO, turned the trial into a circus, and I think Ito did it just because of his ego.
I don't agree with perp walks.
Iconoclast at July 11, 2011 4:55 PM
I won't say how I know this, but every single police department in a 30 county area in a Midwest state has a garage adjacent to their booking area.
They also have multiple holding cells in the booking area. (I.e. the cops can dump multiple alleged perpetrators with room to spare.)
I have watched the local news and seen the perp walked in many times when I knew the garage entrance was empty.
There is no way the theatrics weren't there for a reason.
Anonymous Coward at July 11, 2011 6:25 PM
The perp walk is a big city thing. Where I live and was recently a juror, defendants were brought in and out of the court room through a back door and no media was present.
ken in sc at July 12, 2011 4:18 PM
"The only "weight" should come from evidence in court."
Gee. So many who merely watch television are going to be so upset that their opinion means nothing.
Oh, wait...
Radwaste at July 14, 2011 3:54 PM
Did you see the mob at the jail when what's-her-name was released?
Nothing's changed. They were just missing their pitchforks.
Radwaste at July 17, 2011 7:40 PM
Leave a comment