Privacy or transparency?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Mar 27, 2015.

  1. Sydde macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    This is actually one of the more difficult questions:

    Arizona Legislature passing bill to withhold the names of police officers accused of violence for 60 days.

    On the one hand, I do sometimes think the news coverage of these incidents is excessive, creating a lynch mob atmosphere that does not improve the situation or the dialog. Yet, on the other hand, anything that reduces transparency wrt the police cannot be a net positive, at least as long as there are armored vehicles and riot gear between the police and the police.

    There must be some kind of compromise that can be reached on this, that would make life better for all of us, but for the life of mem I cannot think what it would be or how to get there from here.
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502a


    Jun 10, 2013
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    They should be held to the same standards as regular citizens, accused and convicted are 2 different things. I don't see a reason why their names should be publicized unless joe dirts name is also made public
  3. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god


    Oct 20, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I don't find this unreasonable. An accused violent police officer is at significantly more risk than an accused non-officer.
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Read the OP's article, and it seems to me to be a wrong-headed way to stem off race riots. People will not be placated by a 60 day cooling off period. I think withholding the information will just make people more angry and leave them feeling even more alienated from the police.

    Want fewer riots? Stop harassing and shooting so many people. The answer is better policing and greater accountability, not hiding from the community.
  5. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    Officers that find themselves in a situation like this typically end up riding a desk, so they are not out on the streets being put at risk. And their home addresses are generally not a matter of public record, so "at significantly more risk" does not sound quite accurate to me.

Share This Page