Constitutional Rights in Conflict

The public’s right to known vs. the individual’s right to due process”



Two boys, aged 15 and 17, have been arrested and charged with capital murder. During the arraignment one flashes a smile to a family member in the gallery. Later the two boys are talking quietly among themselves and are heard to be giggling. An editorial writer questions whether these two boys are fully aware of the gravity of this situation. Do these boys, both slightly built and as wide-eyed as any other kid filled with wonderment, understand that they stand accused of murder and that they could possibly spend the rest of their natural lives in prison? Do they fully comprehend the fact that a family’s life has been shattered due to their cavalier attitudes and callous acts?

Wait. Did I just convict these boys? Did I presume their guilt? Did I just assume that because they stand accused that they must have done it? Have I yet to realize that an arraignment is not a trial, that these boys – eyewitnesses gathered or not – are “innocent until proven guilty” in court by a judge and/or jury? Does any of this even matter? Surely the police had good reason to arrest these kids and bring them up on charges. Surely having seen these boys’ photos in the paper, I now know that they are guilty absent the official verdict especially since the crime – including their faces – is captured on video tape.

According to the Bill of Rights, a citizen is entitled to due process; it is specifically enumerated in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. However, the public’s right to know is not specifically enumerated even though it is implied by the first amendment’s freedom of the press. Court dockets are considered public information, and news organizations report what they find. If photographs of the accused (mug shots) are available, so much the better to report. After all, the public has this “right to know”, yes?

While it is reasonable to appreciate our right, or rather our need, to know of potentially dangerous persons especially if they bond out, we must also understand that being fair and impartial after so much press coverage can be difficult. This is significant because those who would read such articles would necessarily be among a pool of potential jurors who may be called to hear such a case. It is in the best interests of all involved that the US Constitution be respected and appreciated for everything it means and implies, especially in such a case in which kids are on trial for their very lives. Our society rightly expects and demands that those responsible for capital crimes be brought to account, but our very system of justice demands that we be as fair as is humanly possible. When the public is informed that the victim in this particular case was a “pillar” of his community and was gunned down needlessly and mercilessly, how can the public fairly or impartially respond beyond its emotional capacity?

The now-well-known Duke lacrosse players stood falsely accused and were put through unmitigated hell for over a year because of a zealous and politically motivated prosecutor. It did not help that the boys who stood accused were white and perceived as “privileged” who had raped a poor, black working girl. Several faculty members at Duke as well as the ever-present Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson all wanted these players’ collective liver on a stick (some faculty even went so far as to take out a full-page newspaper ad revealing their disdain for these “criminals”). Now that the charges have been proved false, the prosecutor has been disbarred and may well be held in criminal contempt with requisite jail time although it is reported that he may only face 30 days. Is this “just” in light of the fact that he virtually took more than a year from each of these young men’s lives?

The moronic “public” which demanded that nothing less than tar-and-feathering would be good enough for these men who have since been publicly vindicated remains strangely silent, but certainly not for the sake of “justice”. The boys had been suspended from school for merely being accused. Now that it has been proved that these young men were, in fact, the real victims, only the prosecutor stands to lose anything. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Duke faculty stroll merely along as the narrow-minded zealots they are because there is no entity that exists which can hold them accountable for their eagerness to deny the lacrosse players their constitutionally protected “due process” while zealously advocating “due process” for another.

How can any sort of balance be achieved in such matters? If a crime has been committed, this is news worthy of press coverage. If someone is arrested in connection with said crime, it is still news but the dynamic is changed, for now someone is entitled to due process by fair and impartial players who are being fed by photos, accusations, and speculation. After the public has been suitably saturated with such reporting, a select few will be asked to disregard all that has been reported and hear nothing but fact. The accused begins his or her trial behind the eight ball. And if, as in the case of the two boys, there is a video tape that has been publicly disseminated on the local news shows, there is not much left to discuss except what sort of sentence can be meted out and whether the 15-year-old should be tried as a juvenile or an adult.

Are those who are caught on tape any less worthy of a presumption of innocence? A picture is worth a thousand words, and it would ideally contain irrefutable evidence. Outside of the photo frame, can there be mitigating circumstances that may diminish or enhance the severity of the crime? If so, should the public have such unlimited access before such a case is even brought to trial? Does the press have unlimited freedom to present what is potentially evidence to the public? If we are swayed by what we see – and we are – and the accused is “guilty” in our eyes, has there been a violation of a constitutional right to due process? Has freedom of the press been overstated?

It seems to me that once an accused person has been arrested, the reporting must necessarily end there. A police investigation has come far enough to warrant reasonable suspicion, but evidence that is gathered in the course of such an investigation must be handled carefully so as not to be tainted or manipulated. Our public speculation about collected evidence is irrelevant. Once this evidence is presented in trial, ideally for the first time in public, it can then be reported as fact and not mere speculation.

Absent an alternative, ours is still the best legal system in the world. We lament about rights of the accused which seem to disregard or overshadow the victims who also deserve to see justice done, but we must always be mindful of the whole premise of our legal system which maintains one’s innocence until proven otherwise. The judicial system seems to be doing its part. I suppose now it is up to the rest of us not to jump to conclusions, secure in the hope that the same constitutional courtesies would be extended to us.