Originally Posted by FowVay
Every single day innocent people are arrested by the cops for whatever reason and even though they've not been convicted of any crime they still have their name published in the newspaper for the whole town to see. This also has an impact on people in a huge way. Even when the District Attorney refuses to press charges based on evidence or lack there of there is never a retraction with explanation.
This is nothing new and one of the tragic exposures people face daily.
As a LEO, I can admit that there are times when the "law" is distorted by a bad officer; it's unfortunate and deplorable, but it does happen.
However, I'd ask that you admit it's a RARE occurrence when this happens, and that most of the time, the vast majority of cops are doing a good job.
Time for a Civics lesson ...
When an officer arrests someone, he/she should have "probable cause"; something that can be clearly, definitively articulated in a PC affidavit or by Oath (ala 4th Amendment). People are not typically arrested "for whatever reason" ... There is a good reason; the suspect likely broke the law. What happens after that arrest is often out of the officer's hands. Prosecutors are elected and have their own agenda, criteria and directions for their staff. An arrest may be difficult to successfully prosecute if the evidence is not easily corroborated for many reasons such as witness reluctance, judicial directives, monetary constraints, plea deals in exchange for other related/unrelated cases, case diversions, etc.
Why would a retraction be necessary? If the PC was valid for the arrest, why would the law officer's entity be responsible to offer a retraction? Just because someone didn't get convicted, or even prosecuted, does not mean the crime was not committed. I have arrested folks for domestic violence, OWI, battery and other crimes that ultimately were not prosecuted for various reasons beyond my control. But the lack of prosecution does not invalidate the arrest. If the arrest were improper/illegal, then a torte can be filed for a violation of rights. And if that civil case were found in favor of the subject, perhaps then a "retraction" might be warranted, but only then. MOST of the time, folks who are not prosecuted were still arrested for a very good reason, backed up by PC as required by the 4th.
Is it a perfect system? Nope; errors happen, compromises are often difficult to appreciate, etc. But, is it one of the best available, fairest of most options, well established and reasonable? Yes.
Further, we should all be grateful that our names ARE published in the local paper when an arrest occurs. As much as it might be embarrassing or harmful to one's reputation, there is a good reason we have this public announcement ... it's called the 6th Amendment; a "speedy and public trial". While we could debate the "speedy" part, delays are often due to constraints and/or tactics on both sides. But the alternative is one such as what we see in countries which practice heavy-handed jurisprudence like Russia and China, and many in the middle-East, where you're grabbed and jailed, and no one knows where you disappeared to, and no charges are brought for months, if not years, and you waste away in a cell at the hands of tyranny. In fact, the "speedy and public trial" of that 6th Amendment is a promise of our system to deal with a subject fairly and openly, as was NOT the practice in England 300 some years ago ... where Monarchy ruled with an iron fist. I certainly understand the discomfort you object to; that seeing one's name in the paper is embarrassing, but that is a small price to pay for the "right" to be treated fairly and openly. One may not believe it is fair, but that pales in comparison to the horridly objectionable treatment that happens in places where your "right" to an open trial for all to see is denied. It is, in it's shortest definition, about "transparency". We have the right to be tried in public, and not hidden away at the hands of oppression. But the "cost" of that right is that we're also subject to some embarrassment. A very fair and equitable trade if you ask me.
However, this thread is about social media retributions and (IMO) immoral actions of revenge. I don't really think your complaint of newspaper embarrassment is the same topic as that of the OPs. What you speak of is not akin to the reports of people defaming others based on lies where no real control or even scrutiny exists to validate the claims. Hence, social media is perhaps interesting, but not worthy of anything but entertainment. (IMO - most of it's garbage or narcissistic indulgence, but you may feel differently).
PS - I am not on any social media whatsoever ... no FB, IG or TW, or such.
