In year eight now of our operations, we find ourselves in the middle of an interesting juxtaposition, with the Davis Enterprise taking on heavy criticism for their coverage of the Daniel Marsh trial, and the Vanguard sitting back, having made the decision that we did not have to print every graphic detail of the troubling case.
When the Vanguard argued that the courts needed to be open to the public, we did so with the principle that an open courtroom prevents the government from abusing the rights of the accused. However, we also believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and we believed that we could paint an accurate picture of the troublesome case without the graphic details.
The Vanguard‘s coverage focused on the evidence of the case, how the murder unfolded, and the feeling that Daniel Marsh described to investigators as he murdered the couple. We avoided some of the more graphic details – viewing them as less essential to the coverage and ultimately unnecessary.
As Tia Will, a Davis resident and member of the Vanguard Editorial Board, wrote in a letter to the Enterprise, “I am appalled at not only some of the explicit description used in Sunday’s story about the double homicide case, but especially by the choice to place under extremely large letters the picture of a dazed-appearing, shackled teenager juxtaposed with the lovely picture of the victims.”
Others were more concerned about the graphic description, such as Donna Stephens who wrote, “I am deeply disturbed and saddened that the article regarding the homicide was published in this past Sunday’s newspaper. The horrific and graphic details are sure to have an enormous impact on our community. It lacked sensitivity to the victim’s family, the Marsh family and the community at large.”
Interestingly enough, neither the Enterprise editor nor reporter have commented on the criticism, and the defense was left to columnist Bob Dunning, who first defended the reporter and then the coverage.
Mr. Dunning dismisses concerns now from both citizens and the defense that the jury pool is potentially tainted by the coverage – a point I still happen to agree with – but he argues, “But the fact remains that these murders were committed by someone – perhaps this defendant, perhaps not – and a newspaper reporting the details of what was presented in open court for all to see is well within the rules of fair play and common decency …”
But the question is, really, was the coverage necessary?
Mr. Dunning argues yes, that “it’s critically important for members of this community to know exactly what happened on that horrible night.”
He argues, “For, when and if the perpetrator is convicted of this horrific crime, we will be able to judge if the sentence is appropriate, we will be able to oppose or support parole if that day comes, and we will be able to more fully assess how this sort of thing can happen in our seemingly idyllic town.”
While it is an interesting viewpoint, I tend to disagree. I think we can know basically what happened, we can understand that the young man is alleged to have brutally stabbed the two to death, to have allegedly tortured and mutilated their bodies and to have gotten a rush off doing so – without exposing the community to all of the graphic details of the event.
Mr. Dunning argues, “Open disclosure is always a good thing in a healthy society, as painful as some details may be … and if you don’t want those details, there’s a simple solution … don’t read the paper …”
That is an interesting point, but it is also to be noted that when newscasts show disturbing imagery, they often give disclaimers. They will tell their viewers that the following coverage shows scenes of a graphic nature that might be disturbing to some views. Some may warn that people with small children might want to take precautions.
There were, of course, no warnings in the newspaper, nothing to warn the public that this coverage might be disturbing. So if the idea is that if people do not want these details, they should not read the paper, maybe the paper needs to warn people in advance so that they can make up their own minds.
After all, the public could read the same news in the Sacramento Bee, Davis Vanguard and Davis Enterprise – the only difference is that the Bee and the Vanguard avoided some of the more graphic images while the Enterprise put it all out there.
Mr. Dunning writes, “From some of the complaints I’ve seen and heard, folks would prefer to have read the following in The Davis Enterprise concerning this disturbing case: ‘A Davis couple died last night. Police think there might have been foul play and have arrested someone. His name and photograph will never be published in the Davis Enterprise at any point, and details of the deaths will not be revealed out of a desire not to offend the public at large. The Enterprise will not be covering the trial, if there is one.’ “
The problem is that Mr. Dunning admits to no middle ground here between complete censorship and no-holds barred coverage of a disturbing trial. I think the Bee and the Vanguard were able to toe the line much cleaner – offering the most critical details of the case while avoiding gratuitously graphic descriptions of the wounds and the crime scene.
The bottom line is that this also gets into the purpose of news coverage. The Vanguard Court Watch operates as a means to hold the government accountable and ensure that the rights of the accused and the victims are not violated.
We fought for an open court because we believed that is the best way to keep the government accountable. And there are clearly some aspects of this case that are of potential concern to us, particularly regarding the interrogation of a minor for four hours without an attorney.
That is very different from the view that Mr. Dunning has that apparently the public has to know every detail of this horrific crime in order to judge whether the sentence is appropriate. Do I really need to describe in graphic details just how the defendant allegedly cut into his victims and gained pleasure in order to make that case?
It is a tough line and clearly one that the school district believed the paper crossed.
As the district wrote to parents, “This weekend the Davis Enterprise published a detailed and potentially traumatizing recount of a public pretrial proceeding.”
Mr. Dunning closes his defense, writing, “There is no question the details of this case have been disturbing to all of us, and people are rightfully concerned about the effect this might have on our children … so talk to your kids in the best way you can … but don’t blame the messenger … the facts of this case need to be known …”
While I mostly agree with his point, where he misses the mark is in saying that “the facts of this case need to be known” – but that’s not the point in question, the point in question is how much gory detail needs to be used to present those facts.
I think we covered the case very thoroughly and yet avoided crossing that line. I think the Enterprise could have and should have done the same.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Kids held in Juvenile Hall are escorted to Court wearing shackles every day in Yolo County. This is a reality in Yolo County. Children (teens) accused of committing crimes are locked into cells every night too and are under guard 24/7. I am mystified why people want to turn their heads away from these images.
The charges were alarming. The description of the bodies explain them. It’s uncomfortable – horrific, in fact. However, It very effectively stops the very active rumor mill so prevalent in Davis.
it would be illegal for the media photograph any of those kids held in juvenile hall and escorted to court waring shackles every day. Also you inadvertantly point out a huge reason why we need the new court house which will advoid this display.
My wife and I discussed the letters to the editor in the Enterprise yesterday and ended up split on the subject .
She very much wanted to understand the details, chilling as they may have been, because she felt a personal safety connection with the story. Our home is less than two miles from the home where the deaths happened. That, from my wife’s perspective is an incredibly short distance, and the possibility that she could have been one of the random victims is far from small. It was easy for her to say, “[i]Why them and not me?”[/i]
I had virtually no interest in the details.
As a result of those two very different perspectives we saw the Enterprise reporting very differently. For her it was a necessary evil. For me it was an unfortunate view of the darkest part of human nature.
“But the question is really was the coverage necessary?”
An interesting requirement to place on any story in any publication.
I’m left with two questions:
1. What details do you object to the Enterprise publishing? You don’t list the items.
2. Why do you object to the the information being published? You don’t describe your reasons.
Siegel- He’s being charged as a adult. Adults are also escorted in shackles. There is no “display.” It is what happens.
No fluff. No dancing around the facts. No rumors. Not necessary to ask questions. No “free Marsh” Facebook page.
“I am appalled…especially by the choice to place under extremely large letters the picture of a dazed-appearing, shackled teenager juxtaposed with the lovely picture of the victims.”
Large letters in a newspaper are headlines. There’s a picture of the accused, looking better and more sympathetic than he has before, and not the least bit dazed. There’s a typical portrait of the victims.
These souls are the three principals of this horrendous case and story. The three likely are inextricably joined into eternity. How could anyone be appalled (or even the least bit surprised) that their pictures are juxtaposed? Better get used to it.
I didn’t know Tia Will is on the Vanguard editorial board. Congratulations, Dr.
Some people need to relax and adjust their sensitivity meters because the Enterprise article wasn’t over the top at all.
Ryan: Being charged as an adult doesn’t make it is so. You have to understand, I worked as a defense attorney for 30 years in this county, so I saw a lot and my perspective differs from yours, undoubtedly. To me this was inappropriate exploitation. In most communities, people aren’t paraded around in chains like they are here, it’s dehumanizing. Fortunately, that will end in a year or two, whenever the new courthouse comes online.
“No fluff. No dancing around the facts. No rumors. Not necessary to ask questions. No “free Marsh” Facebook page. “
We’ll see, just because that evidence was presented by police and DA’s, doesn’t make them true.
“Some people need to relax and adjust their sensitivity meters because the Enterprise article wasn’t over the top at all.”
I’d be interested to see how you’d react if it were your kid. Oh right, I forgot, it wouldn’t be your kid, right?
[quote]I’d be interested to see how you’d react if it were your kid. Oh right, I forgot, it wouldn’t be your kid, right? [/quote]
Right, it wouldn’t be my kid.
So are you saying that the Enterprise shouldn’t report the facts of murder stories because the parents of the accused might be offended?
“Right, it wouldn’t be my kid. “
Care to guess how many times I have heard variants of that over 30 years?
“So are you saying that the Enterprise shouldn’t report the facts of murder stories because the parents of the accused might be offended? “
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
[quote]Care to guess how many times I have heard variants of that over 30 years?
[/quote]
Well Siegel, sometimes one just knows. You don’t know me or my kids so I don’t expect you to understand.
[quote]“Some people need to relax and adjust their sensitivity meters because the Enterprise article wasn’t over the top at all.”
Siegel
I’d be interested to see how you’d react if it were your kid.[/quote]
I think you’re the one who is now being intenionally obtuse. You’re the one who brought up how a parent would react to the article if it was their kid.
I’m not trying to judge you or your kids, but [s]sometimes[/s] often people are surprised. But that doesn’t really matter, what does matter is that it’s someone’s kid and they are a kid, even if they did commit the unthinkable.
*intentionally*
[quote]1. What details do you object to the Enterprise publishing? You don’t list the items. [/quote]
Is this a trick question?
[quote]Mr. Dunning argues yes, that “it’s critically important for members of this community to know exactly what happened on that horrible night.”[/quote]
In no way is it CRITICALLY important for members of this community to know EXACTLY what happened. But there are people like me with a dark and morbid curiosity regarding this issue who want to know exactly what happened.
Wether people want to know or not the information is going to leak out (apparently high school kids were in the court room?). I’d prefer to get mine from a reliable source, so I don’t have a problem with the Enterprises written coverage. (Because Marsh is a minor I was uncomfortable with cover picture though)
I will add I respect the Vanguard’s not to post graphic descriptions, and I do think the Enterprise should have printed some kind a warning they would be doing so.
Since I was one of the culprits who seemed to have kicked off this debate, I will answer from my point of view. There are actually two separate issues that I think should be addressed.
1) Which facts are actually necessary ? Here I think there needs to be a balance. I agree that it is the right
and to some degree the obligation of the press to report fact. But which facts are essential ?
Bob Dunning seems to believe that the Enterprise got it right. But what about the equally valid facts
of the exact length in cm of each stab wound, or what about the manufacturer of the purported blade
that was used, or the manufacturer of any of the allegedly inserted foreign objects ? Are these
necessary facts, and if so why aren’t they being reported ? There is clearly a balance to be achieved here
as David pointed out. What I expressed was my opinion that the Enterprise had crossed a line of what
was needed to inform the community for any practical purpose such as future self protection.
2) This issue of advance warning of sensitive material. My objection to this did precede my conversation
with my friend whose son was directly affected. This was because what came to my mind was what
my children’s reaction would have been to this front page display. As for the “normalcy” of putting
headlines in bold, this was a more graphic display in the Enterprise than I can remember for any
local event within perhaps the past 10 years. I still think either a little warning, or a little more
discretion would have been a better approach given that I do not believe that it is that unusual for
an adolescent to be the first person to scoop up the newspaper. This front page depiction could not
have been missed even if the child in question was only heading for the comics.
[quote]As for the “normalcy” of putting headlines in bold, this was a more graphic display in the Enterprise than I can remember for any local event within perhaps the past 10 years. I still think either a little warning, or a little more discretion would have been a better approach given that I do not believe that it is that unusual for an adolescent to be the first person to scoop up the newspaper.[/quote]
My kids often bring in the paper, and because so often in Davis they find their friends on the cover it is not uncommon for them to remove the rubber band and take a look. I remember after the Sandy Hook shootings, an event I was desperately trying to keep my kids from learning about (and one I was successful in), how grateful I was that Enterprises coverage was very discreet. So I agree with Medwomen on this point, I didn’t have a problem with the content of the story as much as the presentation of the article.
[quote]My kids often bring in the paper, and because so often in Davis they find their friends on the cover it is not uncommon for them to remove the rubber band and take a look.[/quote]
I’ve been thinking about this a little and I wonder if part of my discomfort with the Enterprise’s presentation of the Marsh piece, is that it strayed so far from what normally is found on the cover of this paper. When my daughter was a couple of years old her picture riding a pony at the Farmer’s Market was featured above the fold. Again my kids often find pictures of their friends on the cover, or great shots of simultaneous rainbows and lightening strikes. While I’m careful to shield my kids from news that is not age appropriate, in general I don’t have to worry about them seeing it on the front page of the Enterprise, maybe this is why I found the picture and caption so startling and bothersome.
“But what about the equally valid facts of the exact length in cm of each stab wound, or what about the manufacturer of the purported blade that was used, or the manufacturer of any of the allegedly inserted foreign objects ?”
At the risk of taking this as a serious question when you might be totally joking, I’ll respond. It’s up to you to do more than ask, “Which facts are actually necessary?” Any answer is so subjective as to make the question a meaningless consideration. There are some people who relieve that no pretrial stories should be legal let alone necessary. No newspaper needs to spend much time answering this question; I’m much more interested in knowing whether published information is accurate.
Are you sure that the information you list is valid; was it revealed during the hearing? In any case, the exact cm length of the wounds might be of interest–it would take a lot of space considering the number of wounds involved–I can’t see that that it adds much to identify the manufacturer of the weapon, the glass or the cellular telephone. It certainly wouldn’t offend me if the brands were included as part of the descriptions, however.
Here’s why I think the glass and phone are part of the story, although I wasn’t at the hearing. These facts could go to the justification of whether it’s legitimate to be charging and holding the young man. If he told interrogators something that only someone at the scene could know, it would be important, incriminating evidence.
You have attributed all kinds of unsavory motives to the Enterprise for publishing this story the it did. I think you’re wrong in all such claims; the Enterprise has proved itself a mild-mannered reporter of Davis happenings.
This is the biggest local murder story since the Gonzales-Riggs tragedy. There’s no way to report it in a way that doesn’t trouble someone, particularly someone of high school age or someone close to those involved.
—
“I still think either a little warning, or a little more discretion would have been a better approach given that I do not believe that it is that unusual for an adolescent to be the first person to scoop up the newspaper.”
Warnings like those used by tv for upcoming graphic materials and “spoilers” doesn’t apply to newspapers. Papers always contain stories and photos that might bother children–if parents want to protect kids from reading or seeing newspapers, they easily can.
You haven’t provided much detail about your illustration of the damage supposedly caused. I assume your friend’s child is a high school student who knew the defendant in grade school. In what way was the adolescent troubled? By finding out for the first that his childhood acquaintance had been arrested? That it was for murder of the two nice looking people? What did the Enterprise have to do with anything here?
I’m afraid your memory doesn’t serve you well about the size of headlines used in the Enterprise. It shouldn’t be at all surprising that this story had a bid headline. And, it is not just “any local event”; it is a BIG local story.
B. Nice, I’m distressed that this awful murder popped up unexpectedly in my little community, a quaint town where pony rides and simultaneous rainbows happen and are typical fare in the local paper.
[quote]B. Nice, I’m distressed that this awful murder popped up unexpectedly in my little community, a quaint town where pony rides and simultaneous rainbows happen and are typical fare in the local paper.[/quote]
Me too. Again I didn’t really have a problem with the piece, I was more uncomfortable with the presentation. My point is that given the normal fare of the paper they could have used a little more discretion.
JustSaying
[quote]Any answer is so subjective as to make the question a meaningless consideration.[/quote]
This nicely sums up one of my points. Whether or not one found the amount of information in the paper under or over reporting or just right illustrates that our interpretation is that, completely subjective. The article crossed my line. It obviously didn’t cross yours. My point was to express my point of view, not to attempt to convince you of anything.
As for which details are pertinent to be known to the public that also is open to debate. Anyone who has read “To Kill a Mockingbird” knows that the angle of an alleged blow made by a defendant, in that case one with a physical impairment, can make the difference between determination of innocence or guilt. So, while I believe that it is critical for the judge and jury to hear all of the facts, I think how much fact needs to be reported to the public is highly subjective.
“My point was to express my point of view, not to attempt to convince you of anything.”
Fair enough, medwoman. I actually was hoping to get you to change your mind about some of your initial impressions.
And, we agree that “how much fact needs to be reported to the public is highly subjective.” So, ’nuff said on that one, too.
I’m still interested what the Enterprise coverage imposed on your friend’s teenager. It’s hard to understand without some description, unless she/he was simply critiquing and was similarly bothered by it crossing some subjective line.
I do think that you’re a little premature suggesting that the angle of the blows is an equivalency; the young man isn’t yet on trial. But, don’t you wish every accused got to be defended by an Atticus Finch?
Speaking in generalities, not about this particular case:
What is the role of a newspaper? To accurately report details, or to shield its readers from uncomfortable realities?
“shield its readers from uncomfortable realities”
it’s that what you view the complaint as requesting? the point i saw was that the information could be conveyed accurately without the graphic description.
DP: [quote]it’s that what you view the complaint as requesting?[/quote]
As I said, I wasn’t speaking specifically to this case. I haven’t read the Enterprise article although I’ve seen it scrolling through my Facebook feed. Maybe I’ll eventually read it. Not sure.
But in general, yes. I do see that being the split. Some people want all of the information out there officially on the record, others think that the general population can’t handle the raw facts and they must be protected from them.
I’ll say this…the print media isn’t the only way that what was said in a public venue is going to be disseminated to the general population.
Much ado about nothing.
JustSaying
My friend’s son was apparently quite upset. This brought to mind for me, my own children’s reactions to
the 9/11 reporting and to the death of the brother of a friend. Yes, I agree that these are events that children do need to learn to cope with. I also feel that some discretion, albeit defined differently by different individuals, is warranted.
[quote] do think that you’re a little premature suggesting that the angle of the blows is an equivalency; the young man isn’t yet on trial. But, don’t you wish every accused got to be defended by an Atticus Finch?[/quote]
I was actually attempting to portray this as an example of when precise detail might be necessary, not as an equivalency. And, having said that, I truly do wish that every accused could be defended by an
Atticus Finch who remains one of my favorite fictional characters. He and the Finch family quite literally changed my life when I first met them around age 12.
medwoman, I don’t mean to keep beating this, but I’m really interested in what troubled your friend’s son. You’ve used it to illustrate that something was wrong with the Enterprise coverage.
The only thing that jumps to mind is that he somehow wasn’t aware of the event and read about his childhood friend for the first time that day. That, of course, would have had nothing to do with the way the paper covered it, but that it covered the story at all.
Another possibility is that he was is sensitive as you about the newspaper’s unnecessary detail and/or headline size and/or photo juxtaposition. If so, he’s far more mature a critic that one would think.
Other than that one curiousness, I’m exhausted trying to determine where the line should be. And, we didn’t even get to David’s question about when the Vanguard became the voice of reason. Maybe it was tongue in cheek, anyway.
“Vanguard…the voice of restraint (not reason).”
JustSaying
I have not spoken with my friend’s son, so I have no idea what specifically triggered an emotional reaction for him. However, I do not think that prior ignorance of the event is the only, or even a likely possibility.
I will give you a couple of experiences from my own past to serve as examples of how well known events can serve as emotional triggers. First, my father died when I was nine. I was well aware of the event since we were all living together at the time. I processed the event and was functioning in my day to day life when a little over a year later we passed by the bowling alley where he used to take me. I suddenly made the realization emotionally as well as intellectually that I would never go bowling with my father again. I was extremely upset even though I had known this factually for a year.
My children and I processed 9/11 very differently. I wanted to watch the ongoing coverage in the hopes that there would be new information, not the endless round of the same horrific pictures and talking heads. They did everything in their power to avoid the scenes, even the ones they had inadvertently seen because they found them upsetting. We found a balance by me turning off the TV when they came home.
Just intellectually knowing that something has happened does not mean that one’s emotions cannot be
aroused over and over again by pictures, or events, or sounds that bring the precipitating event to one’s attention. If this mechanism did not occur in the human brain, we would not have the diagnosis of PTSD.
Of course it is true that some individual’s in a community may never be troubled by emotions related to
sights, sounds, pictures, or words depicting horrific events. One poster expressed that even memories of
Viet Nam did not have this effect. I think it is important to remember that this is not true for everyone.
Children and adolescents, because their brains simply retain more impulsivity, and because they have not yet developed the experience in dealing with their emotions may be more vulnerable to having their emotions triggered. This is, at least in part, why we do have preceding disclaimers on stories that may be
emotionally disturbing to some on radio and television, and moving ratings. One poster said that it is different for newspapers. I really do not see why that should be the case.
I appreciate your ongoing curiosity about this JS. I am not trying for agreement. But I do value your attempt to understand why someone might see this so differently from how you saw it.
I think Atticus might agree ; )
Thanks, medwoman, for your patience and for getting us to a point of total agreement. As unthinking as it may seem, I wasn’t giving allowances for how personal traumas logically can be so influential in forming opinions about seeming unrelated matters. I apologize for not giving credit earlier for this way of looking at this issue.
I, too, come up with ideas that others cannot fathom. In one case, I don’t think there should be guns in households in spite of friends who claim it’s logical to have such protection at hand. But, I have reasons that easily overwhelm their supposed logic in my mind.
I’m sorry to hear that you lost your father so young, medwoman.
Interestingly, I also lost my father at 9. Not to death…think Phineas Gage. I know very well emotional triggers.
But this just underscores up my question. What is the role of a newspaper? To be the source of concrete facts for its readership, or to shield them from the troubling facts because they might not be strong enough to handle them?
Again…I didn’t read that article, so I am speaking in generalities. However, I did see the photos in my Facebook stream and if the argument is that it alone was too disturbing or a potential trigger, I think that’s a stretch.
By that standard, the image here in the [i]Garzon Pleads to Battery, Hate Crime Enhancement, Gets 5 Years in Local Custody[/i] (link: [url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7641:garzon-pleads-to-battery-hate-crime-enhance-gets-5-years-in-local-custody&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100[/url]) most certainly could be a far greater trigger. I didn’t hear anyone saying it was too graphic.
Why is that?
You’re exactly right Ginger, I don’t get it either because Partida’s pic was far more graphic than the Marsh pics.
Ginger
Actually, I think that you may have missed the posts calling David out on the use of the photo and perhaps the part of my post stating that the only reason I didn’t was because others already had.
Again, I want to stress, my point is not to stifle the newspaper’s ability to present important information.
I also feel that in a town where many of the students may know or be friends of the accused, there is no informational value seeing not only the court reporters representation but also his shackled photo.
Do you really see any unique informational value there ? Is there no difference in potential impact of that photo whether the individual is an anonymous Davis kid as far as you are concerned, or whether he is a former playmate of yours ? Have you never gasped in dismay when learning about something terrible that has happened to a close friend or relative of yours that I might perceive as just another sad human interest story ?
Also, with the graphic descriptions of the actual injuries sustained, I fail to see how vivid descriptions of evisceration and foreign object insertion provide any more useful information to the public than would, for example, the phrase ” died of multiple knife wounds” inflicted by an assailant who broke into their home. How is that information going to change what any member of the public does or does not do to protect themselves in the future as one poster mentioned ?
Ginger
By the way, I just realized that I might have written something very insensitive given your loss of your father in a terrible accident. If so, I am very sorry. That was certainly not my intent. I was only intending to emphasize that difference in degree of attachment can certainly lead to differing degrees of emotional triggering and that there is no one right or wrong way to “feel” about images or depictions of any kind.
I would only hope that our news sources, whether the newspaper, a local blog, radio or television, would use either use greater discretion in what they depict, or chose to put the actual depictions on the inside perhaps with a front page header stating where in the paper the graphic information is portrayed which would serve as a print equivalent of the heads up given by radio and TV or potentially sensitive content.
Everything you say, medwoman, makes sense. But I think that they are arguments for a courtroom closed to the public, not for a newspaper censoring details.
Details that were spreading like wildfire amongst the Davis population prior to the Enterprise article because it was an open courtroom.
I think if a news outlet is going to advocate for an open courtroom, they should let the public decide for themselves if they want the information…so that the truth can be accessible to anyone who wants to know what is real and what is just a rumor.
Because rumors [i]were[/i] flying around about what was said in court before the facts came out in the newspaper. And we all know the old telephone game…things get distorted and exaggerated as they make their way through a crowd/community. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the Enterprise article put to rest what could have been wildly exaggerated and disturbing rumors that didn’t bear any resemblance to the truth.
“Everything you say, medwoman, makes sense. But I think that they are arguments for a courtroom closed to the public, not for a newspaper censoring details.”
Interesting observation, Ginger, for Mr. Marsh would have been in a closed juvenile courtroom if we really believed that children aren’t responsible for their actions, even terrible ones. This medically accepted concept mostly prevailed until tough on crime advocates got the law changed. As I understand it, the only thing that separates adults and minors tried as adults is that we’re no longer allowed to execute kids.
However, I support David’s stand on keeping courts open. We have a right of fair and open trials, and secret trials can lead to abuse.
Do children suddenly on their 18th birthday flip a switch and suddenly have newfound maturity? Of course not…in fact everyone is probably aware that recent studies show that the portion of a human brain responsible for impulse control isn’t fully developed until age 26, on average. Do we then excuse 24 year-olds for murder (or 28, the age Zimmerman was when he killed Trayvon, for surely there are outliers?) as not responsible for their actions? Do we allow 19 year-olds to marry? They aren’t even close to fully mature.
As a society we don’t have hard and fast rules for these things, precisely because there isn’t a day a flip is switched. Each circumstance is looked at individually, and cost/benefit analysis applied to find the best answer for society. It’s why a 12 year-old girl can get an abortion without parental notification (to borrow from yet another thread).
But that’s not the issue here.
The issue is if the Enterprise should have shared the specific details of this case. Again, since the details were ALREADY out in the public and the rumor mill was WELL underway (people knew of these details before the story ever ran, and most certainly there was going to be falsehoods spread intentionally and due to the “telephone game” phenomenon), I think that the Enterprise setting the record straight probably in the end did more good than harm.
Whoops. My last comment was in response to the statement: [quote] “if we really believed that children aren’t responsible for their actions, even terrible ones. This medically accepted concept..”[/quote]
It’s not a medically accepted concept that children aren’t responsible for their actions nor incapable of making important decisions nor is there a medically accepted age at which someone should be responsible for their actions.
Violence and violence that kills…how can our news sources present information that enables us to process it in a way that helps the community, the offenders and the victims to recover from the harm done and re-establish safety? Scientists have discovered that we have brain neurons (mirror neurons) designated to help us feel what others are feeling – empathy. Lack of empathy is the one characteristic that connects together all the Nazis, propaganda base news sources, slave owners, immoral corporate capitalists, war mongers, terrorists and violent gangs.
What causes human empathy to shut down? It is overriding fear, anger and depression which leads to a genuine incapacity to feel what the other person is feeling. Violence is away to meet human needs. This is what some call evil but it can also be called the absence of empathy. The absence of connection.
Empathy does not shut down when we are able to manage our fears, anger and depression individually or as a group. We are a lot less likely to harm each other. When we extend empathy to the offender, he or she is much more likely to take responsibility for the harm done, seek to understand it and with our help find ways to restore safety to all. The victims and the offenders are community members and both belong to our community.
I ask that our news sources help us to understand the facts they present more deeply. I hardly think the pictures shown of Daniel Marsh will cause as much damage to our children as that of the violent daily TV shows (cartoons included), violent video games and bullying in schools. I know we want to protect our community and children from harm. I do not ignore that. But we cannot punish away violence. Understanding how violence works is the beginning of true ways to prevent and protect our community.
Diane:
Thanks for your thoughtful observations. I agree that the variety of influences at play must contribute to antisocial behaviors, violent and otherwise. My granddaughters started a Waldorf school, and, shortly thereafter, found that Mom had made the television sets disappear for a few years. I certainly empathize with them, but realize their brain neurons probably will end up in a better place.
May I suggest that you not use an email address as your name on a blog. Unless it’s a a pseudonym and your name is George. There are programs that scan websites and pick up emails to add to mailing lists.
You could sign up again using your own name or “George” unless it’s already taken. Maybe there’s something Don or David could do to substitute your email address on this page.