Should a reporter reveal gruesome details that would normally be held within police records?
A local girl was found murdered less than 48 hours ago. A reporter released an article solely written about the report of a police officer to substantiate probable cause for searching the home of the suspect. Not only is this highly inappropriate timing, but should this gruesome information be published even before the suspect is arraigned? My concern is lawyers using this to get a mistrial! Is the reporter is then actually assisting the criminal and should he be made an accessory to the crime!! Where do we draw the line? When is information too much? How did he get this officer's report?
I can't say whether or not they're helping the criminals in some way, but I don't think we need to be bombarded by every gruesome detail. I think telling about the person being killed and whether they were shot or stabbed should be enough. The other people I'm thinking about are the families. They've already had to hear the details (if they chose to) and they don't need to keep being reminded of all of that.
These details were gruesome factors describing absolute horrific details that NO mother should ever have to know and before the man was even arraigned. You are right, the family needs no reminders. Thanks for commenting!
Tabloid type reporting seems to be the rage, and the general public seems to have an insatiable appetite for it. Look at the success of reality TV and consider what makes the front pages of the newspapers. No, I really don't think these gruesome details should be revealed. For one thing, they often interfere w/ investigations and reduce the pools of potential jurors- often forcing cases to outlying jurisdictions. Families of victims shouldn't have to be bombarded w/ the horrible details either. After all is said and done, let all of the grisly facts come out in books or true crime shows which appeal to selective audiences instead.
I should think this would violate the 'case' and make it harder to solve. Reporters, even though they may have a scoop, should weigh the information that they have-does the public need to know EVERYTHING. And does the public WANT to know everything
If there is a suspect, that would compromise the investigation something terrible, I'd think and he may even 'get off'-just because some reporter wanted to sell a sensationalist storu
IF this does compromise the case, that reporter will no longer have a following of readers in this area! It truly was a police officer's report accounting for the search warrant, the reporter should not have been privy to the information at all.