Comments |
04/16/2010
Edgar N.
Nimitz High School, Irving, Texas
The "perp walk," on its own, is not a violation of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. However, when you involve the media and journalism, especially in its declining state, you begin to evolve what was once a simple walk to the court into a circus, a circus that leans on violation of a right. Journalists and reporters want to sell their stories, and one way to do this is over-hype every aspect of a story. Placing a defendant in the worst possible light will make a person seem guilty, and, as unbiased as people feel they are, it's easy for people to get moved over to one side of a case by the right kind of imagery and connotations. Placing defendants in the worst possible light makes for a more interesting story, and an interesting story is bound to sell more and get more views. The media and journalists aren't as concerned anymore with presenting defendants in a neutral light; neutral stories tend not to sell as well. These preconceptions given off by the media change the "perp walk" into a walk of shame. Of course, the same cannot be said about crimes that attract little attention since reporters tend to not show up at low-profile cases, but that brings us back to the fact that the factor that can change the "perp walk" into a circus is the media. Unless you can find a media source or journalist that reports as neutral as possible, the "perp walk" will be a walk of shame in higher-profile cases.
|
04/16/2010
Silvana T.
Nimitz High School, Irving, Tx
There is nothing unconstitutional about the perp walk. It serves a practical function, accused persons must attend their trial and the press must get a statement from their lawyers; both of these things are accomplished in the hundred odd feet from the curb to the court house. Although I agree that footage of a media circus outside of the court house is damaging to the presumption of innocence, I know that this is the exception rather than rule because only high-profile cases are likely to create a media frenzy. I don’t see a problem with the fact that perp walks are used. According to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000, perp walks can’t be done just to shame the accused. For example only in cases of extremely violent criminals are handcuffs used, ensuring that the Fourth Amendment right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure is upheld. As far as a fair and unbiased trial, people will always be biased; however, most people are smart enough to look past their beliefs or impressions of guilt and consider the facts.
|
04/16/2010
Rosaura V
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
The “Perp Walk” itself is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment, but the defamation of it by the media is. The Sixth Amendment protects the right to be judged by an impartial jury. However, seeing someone be given the “perp walk” before a trial can cloud the juries' perception of the defendant and make them think the prisoner is guilty even before the trial. The media is known to embellish news stories, thus the gravity of the prisoner's accusations can be over exaggerated. I personally would not jump to any irrational conclusions after simply watching a “perp walk” on TV, but wait and base my decision according the trial, because I know better. However, that doesn't mean that other ignorant people will know better. So, I think the police should make such matters more private and have a discreet entrance and exit, in which the media won't be able to invade the privacy of the defendant.
|
04/16/2010
Edgar I
Nimitz High School, Irving,Texas
People commit crimes everyday, big or small, and whether they are guilty of these crimes is up to the jury. But to go as far as saying that the “Perp Walk” has a definite impact on the jury's decision is an error. This form of shame, however it is interpreted by the defendant or accused, is just a walk to the court house. No debating goes on outside of the court house so it should not have an impact on the decision that goes on inside. This would not have any impact on the decision I would make because I would listen only to the facts, and not pay attention to the circus outside of the courthouse. One way police can avoid this debacle is by limiting media and press access to the accused.
|
04/15/2010
Chris R.
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
On its own, the "perp walk" is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment rights to a fair and unbiased trial. Granted, the trek down the gauntlet of media reporters all wanting some statement or other that they can use to boost sales can attach you to the crime, even if you're innocent, and it MIGHT sway your opinion if you're on the jury. But the media circus doesn't swarm the courthouse for just any crime. If you robbed a convenience store and no one is hurt, there may only be a couple reporters attempting to obtain a statement. But there is a side of this we haven't examined: If the long walk to the courthouse can convince a juror that the man is guilty, could it also be used to convince the same juror that he is innocent? If the prisoner carries himself like someone who is not really guilty, is composed and not afraid, then doesn't he convince people that he isn't guilty of the crimes he's being accused of. If the accused really doesn't want to face the media swarm, they can drop him off around back. But wouldn't hiding from the media seem more like he's hiding something that if he faces the society which accuses him, cuffed or not?
|
04/15/2010
Nabila
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
Although “the perp walk” may be perceived as an infringement on a prisoner’s sixth amendment rights, the walk in itself is indeed practical and not a violation; a prisoner must report to court for a trial. Personally, I find the swarm of reporters surrounding a prisoner quite unnecessary. If they must obtain information about the prisoner or the case, is there not a more orderly fashion it can be done in, say by contacting the lawyer? Why must the media be so intrusive as a prisoner approaches a life-altering situation? If I were to have seen such an incident on television and report for jury duty, I don't believe I would be biased, considering all prisoners have similar perp walks where he or she avoids answering the reporters' questions and is rushed through the crowd towards the courthouse. I would base my judgment upon what I hear during the trial. In order to tame the public spectacle, police can limit the number of reporters and photographers on site, or disallow the media's appearance altogether.
|
04/15/2010
Thomas
Nimitz HS, Irving, Tx
The "perp walk" has no real effect on the trial so long as the media does not put an unfair slant on the case. But unfortunately this rarely works due to the media networks looking for ratings, and the higher the profile of the case the more the media will slant the case one way or the other. So really the media is what affects the fairness of the trial.
|
04/15/2010
duc c
nimitz, tx
I do not believe that the "perp walk" impairs the defendant's chance of a fair trial. First, and foremost, the "walk" itself happens on public domain. If reporters want to be there to cover the story, they have all the rights in the world. In fact, isn't this allowed in the first amendment? By restricting what the media can cover is basically restricting freedom of the press. Secondly, if the defendant has any hesitiation regarding answering questions, then he or she should simply keep their mouth shut and keep on walking. If the right for reporters to cover the story is deemed unlawful, then that could possibly impact free speech in a negative way. Not only is freedom of the press significantly supressed, but the media in general is essentially censored by the government. In a day and age where our first amendment rights are constantly being challenge, we as the American public must speak up and demand what is rightfully ours. This incident is just another battle in an emerging war between the opinion of the public and the will of the government.
|
04/14/2010
Genesis
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
When you're accused of a crime, you're supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”. So what constitutes as legal until the “proven guilty” part? The jury that sentences you is supposed to be unbiased and fair, but they're only human and are susceptible to outside influences. Anything so blatantly defaming as “the Prep Walk” then, can be considered a serious infringement on a prisoner's sixth amendment rights. We're all supposed to be given a “fair and speedy trial” in the court of law, but unfortunately, when prisoners are paraded around before cameras, they become associated with lawlessness and wrong-doing, even though they may be innocent. Furthermore, the people holding those cameras want gripping, front-page news; in short, they want sales. How do they get sales? By putting a prisoner in the worst light possible. When the news appear on our TV, our computer screen, or in our newspapers, a member of the jury who has seen these images and accompanying headlines can easily begin formulating his or her own opinion before the trial even begins. No one wants to admit but the truth is that, however unbiased we want to be, it's easy to be swayed with the right imagery. When we reflect what a bright orange jumpsuit is associated with, we don't think of a bad costume at a kid's birthday party; we think of law-breaking and guilty prisoners. I admit that we can't erase all of our biases, but we don't have to perpetuate a negative image before the law rightfully intervenes.
|
04/14/2010
Ana I.
Nimitz HS, Irving, Tx
The perp walk in itself is not a violation of one's sixth amendment right. As stated in the beginning of the reading, a perp walk is practical, used by the media and general public to try and catch a word from those involved in the trial. If what we're worrying about is infringing the rights of those involved, then any sort of communication or contact with them shouldn't be allowed because they could change the opinions of the jury as well. Banning interviews, photographs, records etc of any sort though would be impractical because they have become so much apart of our lives in our news. Instead of trying to worry about the media, what lawyers should focus on when choosing their jury is the character of the jurors in order to find people who truly would go into the trial with an open mind and who are not easily swayed by negative portrayal in the media.
|
04/01/2010
Jocelyn
Nimitz, Irving, Texas
If I was sitting on a jury I would try to give that person a fair trial, just like anybody else. Even though I would know that watching that TV “perp walk” would affect the result of the case. In my case it would affect the final decision, because when you try hard not to think about it the news report seems to pop up in the brain at inconvenient times. However, all the members in the court should know how to deal with these situations and be neutral in court cases.
|
03/30/2010
Francisco
Nimitz High School, Irving TX
To me no matter what person or what they have done I will give them a fair trial everyone deserves one not just because of what people think and say about the person everyone deserves a fair trial. If the footage was convincing enough then yes maybe it would make me a little bias. There are many way you can avoid the people the police can be very aggressive and hold them back or you can do something high tech like some kind of under ground tunnel or another entrance into the building.
|
03/28/2010
Vita A.
Nimitz High School, Irving, Tx
First impressions tend to stick to our memories for a long time. If a person were to leave me with a sour taste in my mouth after meeting them, that is what I would remember first. Whenever I hear the name Raquel I almost always have an uncertain feeling towards that person because when I was in kindergarten I met my first bully. The first impression I got from her has lasted so long that it has marred the impressions I get from other Raquel’s. If this has happened to me with something so little as a school bully imagine the lasting impression of a person accused of a crime. I believe that this perp walk has the potential to taint the views of the jury as well as other members of the case. This is definitely an infringement on a prisoners right to a fair trial.
|
03/27/2010
Karina
Nimitz High School, Irving, Texas
I think that the “prep walk” is legitimate on aggressive and violent suspects. Indeed the walk of shame as I might call it, is completely exaggerated by the media. Of course a case where an issue was not majorly controversial would not get many attention from media as compared to a crime where a scam against the government existed. Judges should not be biased against suspects that attracted media attention, it is their job to interpret the law and the Constitution; not guide their ruling based on rumors, opinions, or biases. If I was a judge listening to a case that was widely publicized should not affect the decision that I take from the evidence presented to the court. The only way the “prep walk” can be kept private, is for a subterranean tunnel to be built in every court of the United States, although the suspect would still feel like a criminal but without the media attention, other than that the media will keep exercising their rights.
|
03/26/2010
Ana A
Nimitz High School, Irving/Texas
Today we live in a society where the media plays a big role when it comes into spreading the news about the last robbery case that is going to be dispute in the courtroom. It does not matter if the criminal robbed or killed, they have to go through the prep walk to have their trial. I believe that these people are not technically being humiliated when they are exposed to a prep walk, but I think they do feel unconformable because a lot of people out side the courtroom will be seeing them on TV for the fact that the press is already working on spreading the news. The media will always try to make the scene look negatively, and will make the criminal look guilty without first knowing exactly what had happened. Sadly what the media is showing on TVs influences in many but not all the times the way the person that has the jury duty will discuss the case and it is very likely that it will affect the trial of the person being accused. If I was to be sitting on a jury, I would not take a consideration of the prep walk videos that are being played by the press, I think these videos should not affect the trial, all people that are being accused should have a fair trial, they should be judge based on the evidence not on what the media is showing and not on how these criminals look from the outside, but on how exactly everything happened. Cuffs serve as safety tool, and they do not affect the criminal, people should not be arguing about cuffs because cuffs only make the case safer, although in some cases it is not necessary they should still use them for safety. The footage will not made me biased about the case, is not like the images could change what really happened.
|
03/25/2010
Mauricio V.
Nimitz HS, Irving/TX
Those facing trial shouldn't be shown in handcuffs to reporters because seeing the image of someone being escorted by police automatically makes you wonder what terrible crime did that person commit. The jury will have that image in their head every time they see the defendant because that is all they know about him/her. What if the person dragged to court in handcuffs turns out to be innocent? They won't be able to live a normal life because millions of people saw them surrounded by policemen and being taken to court. The public will then view that person as a criminal even though they did nothing wrong. The courts should let the criminally accused to enter the court though a back or secluded entrance in order to maintain the person's image of innocence, until proven guilty.
|
03/25/2010
Milton
NImitz High School, Irving, TX
When you see someone in a jail uniform and in handcuffs you probably think that person is a criminal. Even though you have no idea what he is being accuse of and if that person is actually guilty. So I think the judges even though they suppose to be very professional and only look a hard evidence, somewhere in the back of their mind that have that image present. So yea I think that judges get influence by these images not a lot but they do. One way the cops can avoid this public chaos is if they brought the accuse person in thru a back door or arrive earlier than the press.
|
03/15/2010
Tamara
Northeast High School, Philadelphia, Pa
I do not believe that "the perp walk" is a violation of the sixth amendment. Although the prisoner is put on camera and recorded, the prisoner is not obligated to answer any of the reports questions. And the jury is never anywhere near the reports to get asked those questions about the trial. So, with the seperation of the two, the trial has no way of being compromised or anything such as that. It will still be a fair trial.
|
03/12/2010
Telma
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
The media reports and spectacles are a common and naturally occurring phenomenon that judges know will take place. Judges who serve in trials understand that that procedures like the "perp walk", hand cuffing, and conviction uniforms and are part of a series of events that are to be followed in order to make court cases more practical and safe. A fair trial is not based on the defendant's appearance or on things that happened to the judge the morning of the trial.. Judges of minor courts focus on all the evidence presented by both parties in order to reach a conclusion.
There is a way to avoid public spectacles. For instance, trial days and times may not need to be shared with the media. Or even not making this decision public. Its not like the government has never done anything behind the public's eyes.
|
03/11/2010
Erik K.
WAHS, Warren, PA
Yes, I believe that this a violation. As was stated by the previous person if would have the public make unfair judgements. When the public hears the crime they tend to have an instant negative view on the person no matter the crime. The media tends to also make the situtation sound wirse than it is. The public does not know all the facts about the trial or crime nor should it be publically displayed. If a person makes the news about a crime, and are foubd innocent, if they were to apply for a job abd the employer saw that on the news would they get hired? Probably not. The sixth amedment says right to a speedy trial, not broadcast my mistake on national tv then judge me. That's total BS. Plus most people don't even care to see. So yes I believe it to be a violation.
|
03/11/2010
charles
warren area high school, pa
No I believe it doesn't infringe on that persons right to a fair trial. Although it might seem cruel to put the accused in the middle of the public limelight jurors are usually isolated from this media and if not they must fulfill their duties as a juror to throw all prior knowledge of this person out the window and view the case and the evidence that is in the court room. The "perp walk" is something that some people may not agree with but its the medias right to be there and try to get a story for the news about it. Ultimatly it won't affect the outcome of the trial, and therefor is not infringing upon his right to a fair trial.
|
03/10/2010
Andrew
warren, New York
I think people should not be able to ask the prisoners Quetsions because there pissed off and in trouble but all you come here and leave your up tight comments and dont know what its like to be in hand cuffs
|
03/10/2010
Minh
Nimitz High School, Irving/Texas
Publicly escorting prisoners into court is ultimately a violation of their Sixth Amendment right to a fair and unbiased trial, a situation exacerbated by the always arbitrarily interested media. If I was sitting in a jury, I would be able to give the perp walking person a fair trial: but for every other person, I think the chance is highly unlikely. People will assume the worst, for their own safety and safety against society’s expectations - against the illogical media-created sense of conformity and social influence - and, associating the news with the defendant, they’ve already subconsciously been conditioned to a certain plan of action, an affinity towards ruling the defendant guilty. Not only defense advocates, civil liberties advocates, and justices are in opposition of the “perp walk”: we now have the science of psychology, and its basic studies and concepts I have slightly mentioned, affirming the negative, pervasive effects of the “perp walk”. The footage will make some biased, and the Supreme Court ruling of Estelle v. Williams, against the impression of guilt, should be the precedent. Yes, cuffs are for safety, who is arguing against them? If the upholders of the law of our land have a reasonable doubt for one to be in cuffs in the first place, why remove them? The problem here is over politicization, as I have heard the Japanese Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki once called it at the 2010 World Affairs Council address on U.S.-Japan relations in Fort Worth. The media creates instant rowdiness and a sort of gratification for the people, who sadly are prone to it, and desperate enough to accept these poor SparkNotes. The media impedes politics, justice, and is reduced to the quality of tabloids when it starts doing unproductive and biased coverage such as following and perping the walk of a defendant to the courts. To avoid the public spectacle, I think the police and lawyers should assess the situation, and restrain the media from impeding the walk (maybe within one hundred/two hundred feet of the courthouse), or have the courts build a garage to drive defendants into, and escort them from there. Yes, that might be costly, and that is why you are asking if I can think of a way: I am pretty sure others higher than me have thought of such, and are debating and assessing better options with better insight of what is best to battle the dreaded “perp walk”. We need justice, safety, knowledge, and truth, but always with responsibility and prudence, greater qualities the media is willing to sacrifice to become Barnum and Bailey.
|