Everything should remain absolutely private until after conviction.

And only released if it's in the public interest. I'd be very very strict here.

I'm a bit weird here though. I basically think the criminal justice system is very harsh.

Except when it comes to driving. With driving, at least in America, our laws are a joke. You can have multiple at fault accidents and keep your license.

DUI, keep your license.

Run into someone because watching Football is more important than operating a giant vehicle, whatever you might get a ticket.

I'd be quick to strip licenses over accidents and if you drive without a license and hit someone it's mandatory jail time. No exceptions.

By far the most dangerous thing in most American cities is driving. One clown on fan duel while he should be focusing on driving can instantly ruin dozens of lives.

But we treat driving as this sacred right. Why are car immobilizers even a thing?

No, you can not safely operate a vehicle. Go buy a bike.

▲

mikkupikku 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Let's say a cop kills somebody in your neighborhood. Some witnesses say it looked like murder to them, but per your wishes the government doesn't say who the cop was and publishes no details about the crime.. for two years, when they then say they cop was found not guilty. And as per your wishes again, even then they won't say anything about the alleged crime, and never will. Is this a recipe for public trust in their government?

	▲	fn-mote 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Making the laws apply to the police the same as other citizens is, at least in the US, unlikely. To be this brings in another question when the discussion should be focused on to what extent general records should be open.
	▲	Muromec 6 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It is also possible to apply a higher standard to the government employees and force greater transparency on them, up to treating them as de-facto slaves of the society.

▲

Polizeiposaune 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Arrests being a matter of public record are a check on the government's ability to make people just disappear.

But the Internet's memory means that something being public at time t1 means it will also be public at all times after t1.

	▲	Muromec 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There is an entire world where arrests are not a matter of the public record and where people don't get disappeared by the government. And then there is US where it is a matter of public record and (waves hand at the things happening).

▲

unyttigfjelltol 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So here in the U.S., the Karen Read trial recently occupied two years of news cycles— convicted of a lesser crime on retrial.

Is the position that everyone who experienced that coverage, wrote about it in any forum, or attended, must wipe all trace of it clean, for “reasons”? The defendant has sole ownership of public facts? Really!? Would the ends of justice have been better served by sealed records and a closed courtroom? Would have been a very different event.

Courts are accustomed to balancing interests, but since the public usually is not a direct participant they get short shrift. Judges may find it inconvenient to be scrutinized, but that’s the ultimate and only true source of their legitimacy in a democratic system.