I remember the story like it was yesterday. I remember his name (though I won't use it). I remember what he looks like. And I remember how it was a shock to a city of 60,000 people.
Back in 2009, the young man was charged with the armed robbery of a Medicine Hat convenience store. If memory serves me right it happened late-afternoon, so it obviously had a few people in disbelief as that kind of thing just "doesn't happen" in their community. His name was released as soon as the arrest was made and everyone went about their business.
As our newsroom did with all crime stories that we named the suspect in, we followed the case in court. I remember the first court appearance the young man made and I knew something wasn't right. His mother was sitting in the front row (as she did through most of the court appearances I witnessed). He walked in and despite being 25-years-old, he looked much older. He looked ashamed. And right from the beginning, lawyers were treating it differently. This was sensitive. We knew he had mental health issues. He had a learning disability.
I left Medicine Hat before the case came to a conclusion in court but a quick search on my old station's archive uncovered that the young man was deemed unfit to stand trial as he wouldn't have been able to properly deal with the situation. The unfortunate thing is that we see this situation unfold when covering crime and courts, more often than you would think. Sometimes it's the suspect. Sometimes it's the complainant.
This begs an interesting question: how do you strike a balance between keeping everyone informed about what has deeply affected their community versus being sensitive to the fact that the person may not totally understand what they have done and it may not do them any good to have their name all over the radio/TV/newspaper/internet? Since that first court appearance, I was uneasy using his name in our news reports simply for that reason. But at the same time, in the end, his name was cleared in a roundabout way. And people became a little more understanding of his situation.
Another example would be Randall Hopley. He was accused of kidnapping Kienan Hebert in Sparwood last fall. Some have called into question whether he may have a learning disability of some kind. The way RCMP handled their message through the media to Hopley had me questioning it from the on-set. It was never "we are going to get you". It was always "we know you have a story to tell, so bring Kienan home and we will help tell your story". Almost as if they were speaking to a child.
Should we be seeing these "criminals" as villains? Or should they be looked at as people who need help? Again, does it do anyone any good to continue putting them into the spotlight when, in many cases, they have needs far beyond a jail cell.
And it's a difficult balance to strike even when a situation is playing out. Take a look at when a kid says someone tried to pull them into a van. Police are working off the best information they have and they pass it on to the media, who gets it out there. Hours and days are spent searching for a suspect or a vehicle or any kind of lead that will get them an arrest and let people rest a little easier at night. But after a while, we hear the story was made up by the young boy or girl. You need to err on the side of caution and I get that. But the question has been raised in many newsrooms: how serious do we take these situations? A community needs to know something may have happened. There will undoubtedly be discomfort felt by residents letting their kids go out and play. You have to give the complainant the benefit of the doubt. But the sad reality is it's almost a case of "the boy who cried wolf". Who do you believe?
I don't think there is a solid answer to any of the questions raised here. I do believe though, that in all cases, don't judge any book by its cover. Let all the facts get out there before anyone is made out to be the "villain".
No comments:
Post a Comment