Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
An open police and court system is one of the underpinnings of our free society in the United States.
Citizens of many countries don't enjoy what we sometimes take for granted. There, someone can be dragged away by police in the middle of the night, tossed in prison and executed, without a word being said.
Not here. Police arrest reports and court actions are public record. Anyone who chooses to can read them. Newspapers historically have saved people the trouble and published this information for them. This serves to protect the public from unscrupulous actions by law enforcement agencies or the courts.
For those caught up in the legal system, however, it can also add to their embarrassment. Recent high-profile stories on public safety employees Michael Shane Shipley and Stanley Todd McKnight have led some readers to ask why we publish criminal charges.
Newspapers often get phone calls from people to see if their name can be kept out of the paper. They don't want their family, neighbors, or employers to know of a drunken driving charge or drug bust. They assure us charges will be dropped, but they rarely are.
The general public, however, wants to know about law violations, and has every right to know. Our policy is to print public records for major offenses. We never hold a name from publication if it falls within our guidelines.
Generally, if someone is accused of a felony or is charged with three or more misdemeanors at one time, his or her arrest will be printed. Some newspapers print all DUII charges. However, since they are only a misdemeanor in Oregon, we don't usually list them.
Another consideration we use in deciding to publish is if the accused is a public figure, or there is some other interesting aspect of the story that elevates its news value. For example, if an elected or public official gets arrested, that's news, even if it's a misdemeanor.
Recently a former county commissioner and a Roseburg councilman fell into this category.
Juveniles are a separate issue. It's a common misconception that juvenile names cannot be printed. In Oregon, all arrest records are public, regardless of age. If a minor is turned over to juvenile court, at that time the record is sealed.
It's our option to print a juvenile's name. Our practice is to usually withhold the name unless it is a particularly severe crime, such as a murder charge. The thinking is that young people often use poor judgment and do something stupid that they wouldn't consider doing once mature.
Adults who are charged will see their names in the paper.
Those who later get charges dropped against them sometimes feel it is an imperfect system. They worry they will suffer the stigma of the accusation despite follow-up news stories that report charges have been dropped.
However, factual reporting often clarifies rumors that often overstate the crime or circumstances tremendously. The public is also well aware that not all arrests or charges result in conviction, and people are not guilty unless they admit to it or are proven to be in court.
Newspapers don't print rumors or accusations unless legal authorities have taken action. For an arrest charge to be made, police officers or prosecutors have seen enough evidence that a crime has likely been committed and there is good reason to believe that a certain individual is guilty of it.
Many people usually know of an arrest before it's reported. We often get calls from people who heard of an incident and want verification. Our readers firmly tell us they want to know about serious offenses, especially involving minors, so they can better protect their own children. They want to know if someone down the street is suspected of breaking into houses or driving drunk.
Questions have arisen in two recent cases that were reported in The News-Review, and on local radio and television.
One was the coverage given to Douglas County Animal Control Officer Stanley Todd McKnight, who was charged with rape, assault, burglary and criminal trespass. After DNA tests revealed the semen sample taken from the accuser was from someone other than McKnight, the charges were dropped. McKnight is still the subject of an internal investigation.
Supporters of the officer have criticized the early news reports of the charges.
Then there was the case against Michael Shane Shipley, a firefighter and paramedic who was charged by the Oregon State Police with two counts of sexual abuse involving minor boys.
Tragically, Shipley committed suicide shortly after being charged. While the charges were misdemeanors, his story was news since he was a public employee who may have used his trusted status in attracting the victims. Some of his supporters, who believe him to be innocent, blame the media coverage for the suicide.
Conversely, the media would be taken to task if we did not report a suspected sex offender, who with the shield of anonymity, continued to threaten children.
I'd advocate that the official investigation should continue, either to clear this man's name, or show the substance of the charges that were brought.
These issues have received a tremendous number of comments on the newsreview.info Web site.
One can tell by reading the comments that there are plenty of opinions on the possible guilt of those who were accused. Truth is, there are only a few people who know for sure.
Newspapers have played a historical role in keeping the public informed and have since been joined by radio, television and the Internet.
Despite the flaws and chance of embarrassment with reporting criminal charges, it's vital that the news media continue as a watchdog of government and advocate for open records. A judicial and police system cloaked in secrecy is a horrible alternative.
Bart Smith is editor of The News-Review. He can be reached at 957-4203 or e-mail: bsmith@newsreview.info.
Citizens of many countries don't enjoy what we sometimes take for granted. There, someone can be dragged away by police in the middle of the night, tossed in prison and executed, without a word being said.
Not here. Police arrest reports and court actions are public record. Anyone who chooses to can read them. Newspapers historically have saved people the trouble and published this information for them. This serves to protect the public from unscrupulous actions by law enforcement agencies or the courts.
For those caught up in the legal system, however, it can also add to their embarrassment. Recent high-profile stories on public safety employees Michael Shane Shipley and Stanley Todd McKnight have led some readers to ask why we publish criminal charges.
Newspapers often get phone calls from people to see if their name can be kept out of the paper. They don't want their family, neighbors, or employers to know of a drunken driving charge or drug bust. They assure us charges will be dropped, but they rarely are.
The general public, however, wants to know about law violations, and has every right to know. Our policy is to print public records for major offenses. We never hold a name from publication if it falls within our guidelines.
Generally, if someone is accused of a felony or is charged with three or more misdemeanors at one time, his or her arrest will be printed. Some newspapers print all DUII charges. However, since they are only a misdemeanor in Oregon, we don't usually list them.
Another consideration we use in deciding to publish is if the accused is a public figure, or there is some other interesting aspect of the story that elevates its news value. For example, if an elected or public official gets arrested, that's news, even if it's a misdemeanor.
Recently a former county commissioner and a Roseburg councilman fell into this category.
Juveniles are a separate issue. It's a common misconception that juvenile names cannot be printed. In Oregon, all arrest records are public, regardless of age. If a minor is turned over to juvenile court, at that time the record is sealed.
It's our option to print a juvenile's name. Our practice is to usually withhold the name unless it is a particularly severe crime, such as a murder charge. The thinking is that young people often use poor judgment and do something stupid that they wouldn't consider doing once mature.
Adults who are charged will see their names in the paper.
Those who later get charges dropped against them sometimes feel it is an imperfect system. They worry they will suffer the stigma of the accusation despite follow-up news stories that report charges have been dropped.
However, factual reporting often clarifies rumors that often overstate the crime or circumstances tremendously. The public is also well aware that not all arrests or charges result in conviction, and people are not guilty unless they admit to it or are proven to be in court.
Newspapers don't print rumors or accusations unless legal authorities have taken action. For an arrest charge to be made, police officers or prosecutors have seen enough evidence that a crime has likely been committed and there is good reason to believe that a certain individual is guilty of it.
Many people usually know of an arrest before it's reported. We often get calls from people who heard of an incident and want verification. Our readers firmly tell us they want to know about serious offenses, especially involving minors, so they can better protect their own children. They want to know if someone down the street is suspected of breaking into houses or driving drunk.
Questions have arisen in two recent cases that were reported in The News-Review, and on local radio and television.
One was the coverage given to Douglas County Animal Control Officer Stanley Todd McKnight, who was charged with rape, assault, burglary and criminal trespass. After DNA tests revealed the semen sample taken from the accuser was from someone other than McKnight, the charges were dropped. McKnight is still the subject of an internal investigation.
Supporters of the officer have criticized the early news reports of the charges.
Then there was the case against Michael Shane Shipley, a firefighter and paramedic who was charged by the Oregon State Police with two counts of sexual abuse involving minor boys.
Tragically, Shipley committed suicide shortly after being charged. While the charges were misdemeanors, his story was news since he was a public employee who may have used his trusted status in attracting the victims. Some of his supporters, who believe him to be innocent, blame the media coverage for the suicide.
Conversely, the media would be taken to task if we did not report a suspected sex offender, who with the shield of anonymity, continued to threaten children.
I'd advocate that the official investigation should continue, either to clear this man's name, or show the substance of the charges that were brought.
These issues have received a tremendous number of comments on the newsreview.info Web site.
One can tell by reading the comments that there are plenty of opinions on the possible guilt of those who were accused. Truth is, there are only a few people who know for sure.
Newspapers have played a historical role in keeping the public informed and have since been joined by radio, television and the Internet.
Despite the flaws and chance of embarrassment with reporting criminal charges, it's vital that the news media continue as a watchdog of government and advocate for open records. A judicial and police system cloaked in secrecy is a horrible alternative.
Bart Smith is editor of The News-Review. He can be reached at 957-4203 or e-mail: bsmith@newsreview.info.
