posted on Sep, 2 2003 @ 10:53 PM
An interesting thing happened where I live today. Over the last week 4 women have been raped. One of the rapes took place at a video store and the
woman was dragged into a back room. Part of the attack was caught on a security camera.
The police have named a 'person of interest' that they want to speak to regarding the rapes. This man disappeared from his halfway house the same
day of the first rape and has therefore violated his parole. He has a history of violent crime including sexual assaults. Because they felt that
'the public interest supercedes his privacy rights', they have released his name and picture ... which appeared on the cover of the newspaper
A guy I work with was just appalled that the police would do this. He says that it is a sore point with him. He hates that there are cameras on
the street etc. and that we are constantly being monitored. And he raises the question of what if this guy is innocent of these crimes?
In this day and age of such things as the Privacy Act, we have to ask ourselves the question 'Where do we draw the line?' If we say that criminals
shouldn't have any rights, then does that mean that if you were ever arrested at a protest you shouldn't have any rights? Or if you were arrested
for possession of marijuana several times in your past, your picture should be allowed to go on the front cover of a newspaper as a suspected person
selling drugs to children?
I, as a woman, a potential victim, am personally happy they made the picture public. I am just not sure how and where the line should be drawn.
Laws almost have to be made as black and white, when in reality there are just too many greys for them to really work.