Right now there's a somewhat local news story about a volunteer at a day care centre who's been charged with sexually abusing some of the children, and the story has really been making me think. The volunteer's name and picture have been plastered on all the newspapers and on the news shows across the provine, and the name and pictures of the day care centre have likewise been a big media focus.
On the one hand, I believe parents whose children may have gone or are going to this day care centre need to know -- they need to be able to find out if their children were also victims of this person and they need to know that this happened in their community. On the other hand, there is no presumption of "innocent until proven guilty"; the way it's being portrayed in the media, this is a done deal: the man's guilty, so there.
What concerns me, though, is what happens if this man (or other people similarly accused of heinous crimes) turns out to be innocent? Nobody is ever going to believe that. The taint of "child molester" (or "murderer," "rapist," etc.) will always be attached to his name and face. What's more, the company that hired him (well, he was a volunteer in this case) will always have this story attached to them -- who would send their kids to this day care, knowing that at least once in their past, they had a child molester working for them? (Even though, of course, they didn't know about that when they hired him and were quite surprised by the accusations against him.)
There is absolutely no way to remove the suspicion, even if he is later found innocent. It's possible that the day care centre will never recover from this -- personally, I can't see me sending my future children there, and as hard as it can be to find decent day care, I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.
What do you think about this? Is there any way to balance the public safety and the need to warn potential victims with the individual rights of the accused -- who, after all, are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? The way I see it, any person whose name is attached to a heinous crime will pretty much always be associated with it; same as the way any company or organization that is associated with the criminal and the crime will always be tainted by that association (think of the way that Kent State University will always be known for the shootings -- as actor/director Kevin Smith pointed out, they could cure cancer and people would still be like "Yeah, but didn't you have those shootings a few years back ...?"). Any thoughts?
On the one hand, I believe parents whose children may have gone or are going to this day care centre need to know -- they need to be able to find out if their children were also victims of this person and they need to know that this happened in their community. On the other hand, there is no presumption of "innocent until proven guilty"; the way it's being portrayed in the media, this is a done deal: the man's guilty, so there.
What concerns me, though, is what happens if this man (or other people similarly accused of heinous crimes) turns out to be innocent? Nobody is ever going to believe that. The taint of "child molester" (or "murderer," "rapist," etc.) will always be attached to his name and face. What's more, the company that hired him (well, he was a volunteer in this case) will always have this story attached to them -- who would send their kids to this day care, knowing that at least once in their past, they had a child molester working for them? (Even though, of course, they didn't know about that when they hired him and were quite surprised by the accusations against him.)
There is absolutely no way to remove the suspicion, even if he is later found innocent. It's possible that the day care centre will never recover from this -- personally, I can't see me sending my future children there, and as hard as it can be to find decent day care, I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.
What do you think about this? Is there any way to balance the public safety and the need to warn potential victims with the individual rights of the accused -- who, after all, are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? The way I see it, any person whose name is attached to a heinous crime will pretty much always be associated with it; same as the way any company or organization that is associated with the criminal and the crime will always be tainted by that association (think of the way that Kent State University will always be known for the shootings -- as actor/director Kevin Smith pointed out, they could cure cancer and people would still be like "Yeah, but didn't you have those shootings a few years back ...?"). Any thoughts?
I by no means think that the media should be convicting people.
