Are death and murder private affairs?

[Fragile Bird]

I've been meaning to ask this question for some time, ever since I saw stories earlier this year that the RCMP in Canada refused to release the name of several murder victims in different provinces where they act as the provincial police force, on the grounds that it violated the privacy of the murder victims. Several refusals were done at the request of the family.

I did a search for some articles and now I find that the RCMP are also not releasing the names of people killed in car crashes, again on privacy grounds.

From an article:

A privacy lawyer at the Halifax-based firm McInnes Cooper said he doesn't understand the timing of the decision.

"There certainly haven't been any legislative changes that have happened to our privacy laws that would cause this, nor have there been any significant findings from the privacy commissioner or any high-profile circumstances that I can think of that might have brought about this change in policy," said David Fraser.

Fraser also doesn't buy the sudden affection for the law.

"Not disclosing the information very likely makes their jobs easier, and not having to ask the next of kin or the family to disclose whether they can disclose this information, it's one less thing that they have to do," he said.

"It's always easier — we see this across government — to just point to the privacy legislation as a reason to not do something … to not provide information to the media."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcmp-quietly-stops-naming-victims-citing-privacy-act-1.3154112

What do you think about this?

I find the idea of not releasing the name of a murder victim bizarre. If people don't know the name of a person who has been murdered, how do members of the public provide information to the police? Valuable information like who was the last person to see them alive, or the fact that they were in the company of someone? Or that you have a security camera at your business or home that might have valuable information on it? How would you feel if you found out someone in you neighbourhood had been murdered, and you don't know about it, but the murderer is out there in the public?

And of course, if the police have caught the murderer, when they come to trial all the information is public anyway. But I'm more disturbed about the idea of unsolved murders not being public knowledge. There's a murderer out in the public, somewhere. I almost feel like it's more about the police hiding the fact that they haven't caught the murderer.

I have mixed feelings about not naming people killed in car accidents. Surely once you are dead you don't care about privacy. Your family might, though I'm not sure why. The automatic response might be that the family will tell people about the death and the funeral arrangements, but over the last 10 or 15 years I have seen more and more people who do not tell anyone about deaths in the family. I've been shocked to find out that parents of people I grew up with have died and their children have not posted a death notice, have not had a funeral, did not tell anyone about the death at all.

It all reeks of...I don't know what to call it. I stared at the page and couldn't come up with a word for it. It feels de-humanizing. You've been murdered and no one is to know. You were killed tragically in an accident and no one needs to know, you were just a bag of bones that got smashed in an accident. It's almost immoral.

I understand the idea of a private funeral, but this goes way beyond that concept.

What are the police doing where you live?

 

[MercenaryChef]

Those who die via auto erotic asphyxiation should on the other hand have their names and faces shared with everyone.

Always have a spotter for that sort of activity!

Jerking it with a belt around your neck or a plastic bag on your head alone is like scuba diving without a partner.

Safety, people!

Sorry, that has been on my mind a while.

Hiding the identity of murder and crash victims seems really strange to me. I can't understand it. I am curious how it is legal.

[Fragile Bird]

Many of those are "death by misadventure" deaths.  I don't have an issue with privacy in the case of suicide or a private, accidental death, falling down the stairs and breaking your neck, for example.  Mind you, other people would disagree.  I know that some people are very suspicious of the deaths of young LGBT people, wondering if murders are being covered up as suicides.

 

I just don't understand the reasoning behind hiding the identity of murder victims.

[MercenaryChef]

There is something rather private about dying. Perhaps I am being a touch existential about it all. But, no death is beyond being reported upon.

[Impmk2]

This may be my introverted nature coming to the fore, but the point of view in the OP is so utterly alien to me I'm completely at a loss to understand it.

 

Yes death and the associated greiving process is an intensely private affair. The emotional damage which can be caused by the media splashing the names and faces of victims up on the TV for all to see (sometimes before the friends and family of the deceased have even been told) can be huge.

 

Frankly, when someone has died it's none of your business. It's certainly not the business of millions of people who just want to watch some murder / accident porn, and the media who chasing ratings, wants to sell it, often by harassing the still grieving family in the process. If the family chooses to tell you, then good for you, otherwise leave them alone.

 

If there's an appeal to the public for information from the police they can provide information (description of people, areas etc) without explicitly naming the victim. If there's someone to whom the name means anything with information, there's a damn good chance they've already been contacted directly.

[Kindly Old Man]

I think this is fine, and the wishes of the deceased's kin should be respected. I doubt members of the public at large are really going to contribute in my meaningful way to solving the vast majority of murders. I don't care what happens to my body after I'm dead, because I'll be dead, but to the extent that my relatives want my advice I'd suggest they dispose of my corpse as quickly and cheaply as possible after organ donation, and not waste anyone's time or money on a funeral. But really they should do whatever makes them feel best, I guess.

[Fragile Bird]

KOM, I don't care what you want done with your funeral. I only mentioned this trend of deep privacy in funerals in the context of murder.

If you were the victim of a murder I think there is a public right to know about it.

This may be my introverted nature coming to the fore, but the point of view in the OP is so utterly alien to me I'm completely at a loss to understand it.
 
Yes death and the associated greiving process is an intensely private affair. The emotional damage which can be caused by the media splashing the names and faces of victims up on the TV for all to see (sometimes before the friends and family of the deceased have even been told) can be huge.
 
Frankly, when someone has died it's none of your business. It's certainly not the business of millions of people who just want to watch some murder / accident porn, and the media who chasing ratings, wants to sell it, often by harassing the still grieving family in the process. If the family chooses to tell you, then good for you, otherwise leave them alone.
 
If there's an appeal to the public for information from the police they can provide information (description of people, areas etc) without explicitly naming the victim. If there's someone to whom the name means anything with information, there's a damn good chance they've already been contacted directly.

As I said, I have mixed feelings about naming accident victims. But murder victims? Absolutely they should be named, IMO.

Murder is a crime that we deal with in a very specific manner. Convicted people may be sent to prison for years, decades, forever. They can be sentenced to death in many countries. And there's an unfortunate history in many countries of wrongful convictions. Murder has to be dealt with complete transparency.

And on the side of society in general, everyone has the right to live in safety and without fear of being victims of crime, let alone being murdered. I think there are important social reasons why serious crimes like murder have to be made public. I think there are groups in every country that believe they are not being treated fairly by police, for example, who would suspect the police were not taking crime in their community seriously if the police simply stopped reported violent crimes against them.

That doesn't mean I think the media should have any right to harass the members of a murder victim's family. If family members let it be known they want privacy, the media should respect that request. Often, though, murder victims' families want as much publicity as possible, and make direct appeals to the public for help finding the murderer.

I cannot fathom the attitude of not allowing the name of a murder victim to be published. Your husband was murdered in a gangland slaying, so you're embarrassed? Your son was gay and was killed by someone who hates homosexuals, and you were unhappy by his lifestyle choice and don't want people to know so you don't want it published? You're just a very private person and figure, as you said, it's nobody's damn business? Sorry, I strongly disagree. Murder is too serious a crime.

[Malik Ambar]

Frankly ? Yes. The media is sensationalist in it's coverage of crimes.  Plus, general public coming forward with correct information that proves useful doesn't happen as often as you might think.

[Impmk2]

As I said, I have mixed feelings about naming accident victims. But murder victims? Absolutely they should be named, IMO.

Murder is a crime that we deal with in a very specific manner. Convicted people may be sent to prison for years, decades, forever. They can be sentenced to death in many countries. And there's an unfortunate history in many countries of wrongful convictions. Murder has to be dealt with complete transparency.

And on the side of society in general, everyone has the right to live in safety and without fear of being victims of crime, let alone being murdered. I think there are important social reasons why serious crimes like murder have to be made public. I think there are groups in every country that believe they are not being treated fairly by police, for example, who would suspect the police were not taking crime in their community seriously if the police simply stopped reported violent crimes against them.

That doesn't mean I think the media should have any right to harass the members of a murder victim's family. If family members let it be known they want privacy, the media should respect that request. Often, though, murder victims' families want as much publicity as possible, and make direct appeals to the public for help finding the murderer.

I cannot fathom the attitude of not allowing the name of a murder victim to be published. Your husband was murdered in a gangland slaying, so you're embarrassed? Your son was gay and was killed by someone who hates homosexuals, and you were unhappy by his lifestyle choice and don't want people to know so you don't want it published? You're just a very private person and figure, as you said, it's nobody's damn business? Sorry, I strongly disagree. Murder is too serious a crime.

 

I don't see why the explict naming of a murder victim is required to raise public awareness of a murder. They can be reported on without. Yeah sure, if the family wants them named, and wants the media attention on the murder, go for it. As you say, in many crimes the family will have no problems with that. But without that explict consent I can't agree. Privacy is becoming hard enough to protect in the modern world, without the ratings and hype driven nature of modern reporting.

 

That's setting aside issue that the individual reporting of crimes can give an extremely limited, purely anecdotal, and sometimes harmful view on crime and punishment. Humans are good at linking unrelated events and creating hysteria around extremely rare occurances. Our brains are wired to deal in populations of hundreds, not millions.

[Kindly Old Man]

Lol, where do you live FB, Mayberry?  Where every citizen is diligently pitching in to solve all the murders that happen? People can report a murder without names. If there is a trial, I'm sure names will be revealed as is necessary.

[Seli]

Cultural differences. Over here in the Netherlands even the names of murders are generally not released, they are reported with first name and initial of the family name. I only remember seeing the name of victims reported when they had been in the public eye before their death; (former) politicians, prominent criminals.

[Arkhangel]

This may be my introverted nature coming to the fore, but the point of view in the OP is so utterly alien to me I'm completely at a loss to understand it.

 

Yes death and the associated greiving process is an intensely private affair. The emotional damage which can be caused by the media splashing the names and faces of victims up on the TV for all to see (sometimes before the friends and family of the deceased have even been told) can be huge.

 

Frankly, when someone has died it's none of your business. It's certainly not the business of millions of people who just want to watch some murder / accident porn, and the media who chasing ratings, wants to sell it, often by harassing the still grieving family in the process. If the family chooses to tell you, then good for you, otherwise leave them alone.

 

If there's an appeal to the public for information from the police they can provide information (description of people, areas etc) without explicitly naming the victim. If there's someone to whom the name means anything with information, there's a damn good chance they've already been contacted directly.

 

Totally agree with all of this. There's little to no added evidentiary value in publicly naming someone - anyone who knows them well enough to know their name and saw them shortly before their death will certainly hear that they've been murdered without it needing to be broadcast publicly, and releasing the name will mean nothing to any random bypassers with useful information. If the family want to keep it private and the police feel they don't need to release the name for the purposes of the investigation, that's fine. The public's voyeuristic curiosities don't come ahead of the wishes of the family.

 

Edit: Also,

 

 

 

It all reeks of...I don't know what to call it. I stared at the page and couldn't come up with a word for it. It feels de-humanizing. You've been murdered and no one is to know. You were killed tragically in an accident and no one needs to know, you were just a bag of bones that got smashed in an accident. It's almost immoral.

 

That's not what it means at all, not splashing the names and faces across the media is not like they're covering the death up or keeping it a secret. You've been murdered and your family know, your friends know, your loved ones and co-workers and probably random acquaintances know. It's just that your personal tragedy hasn't been turned into tabloid fodder for public consumption.

[polishgenius]

What they all said. If the police feel it would aid their investigation to have the victim's identity released, then yes, that should take precedence over privacy. If not, then I see absolutely no reason to sate the public desire for grisly voyeurism over the wishes of the family of the deceased.

I think it's also quite likely that in many cases, broad public and media attention could hurt as much as hinder. Someone whose victim's face is in the news is far more likely to get careful and go to ground.

[Neddy's Girl]

Not read it all yet (I'll catch up) so this might have been said, but I live in the UK where the tabloid papers are vile and prolific. People who have become news because they have been unfortunate enough to be victims, seem to be fair game, with information (often erroneous) about their private lives and their families' splashed all over the press. So should it be on a need to know basis? If it helps with police investigations, should the name be released, but otherwise, let the family grieve in peace?

I personally don't hold my body in any reverence after death, but my name, my face, and my reputation are another matter.

[Which Tyler]

FWIW, I couldn't agree more than with Impmk2 and KOM.

If its in the public interest to know that a murder has been committed, then tell them that, absolutely no need whatsoever to name victim and traumatising love ones.
If the family want privacy then I don't see any reason not to let them have it, after all, it's no-one else's f---ing business

[A wilding]

Another angle is that publicity might even motivate some murderers.

Look at this week's murder of US reporters, where the murderer even filmed himself doing it and then posted it online. I am only glad that he did not live long enough to see images from his snuff film disgustingly pasted over the front pages of the UK tabloid newspapers. I can only imagine how angry I would feel about that if I was a relative of one of the people who were shot.
 

[zelticgar]

I find the policies for naming of perpetrators and victims vary greatly from country to country and state to state. Here in Massachusetts the legislature and governor recently signed a law outlawing the publishing of domestic violence arrests in police logs. Basically the theory is that you will tip the public off to the victim if the perpetrator is named. I personally think the fear of public shame for getting arrested might make some people think twice before smacking around their girlfriend or wife. Typical though, most of the legislature are former and current defense attorneys.

 

The naming of murder victims seems to be pretty common in the US. I cant think of many cases where they do not name the victims but there is often a delay to make sure family is notified.

 

The other trend i am seeing recently is that the cause of death in obituaries is being explained more frequently in heroin overdoes deaths. It used to be they would just put "died suddenly" but now there are more cases where they explain the cause. I'm all for full disclosure but for non criminal cases it is ultimately up to the family to decide.

[Fragile Bird]

Lol, where do you live FB, Mayberry?  Where every citizen is diligently pitching in to solve all the murders that happen? People can report a murder without names. If there is a trial, I'm sure names will be revealed as is necessary.

No, I live in Toronto. :)

Where do you live, where people don't assist the police? The police here regularly ask the public for help, with hit and run accidents, with shootings, with missing persons cases, with murder cases. They don't always get it. People don't "diligently pitch in" to help with murder cases, but they generally cooperate. But if you don't know who's been murdered, how could you cooperate?

The police withhold names until family can be contacted. On rare occasions names may be published by the media before family members know because of the circumstances, or the media may reach family before the police do (I think many of us expect the police to be much more efficient than they often are). In my life as a newspaper reporter I never had the grim task of contacting family members after a death, but from the experience of colleagues either people ask for privacy and you go away, or they want to talk about their loved ones so that the story about their deaths can include expressions of love and loss.

The British tabloid culture is infamous, of course. And if the murders are shocking, like a mother killing her children, or the death of a popular and public personality, attention is inevitable.

I must be more suspicious of authority than most of the people in this thread. I'm suspicious that unless the names of murder victims are published, they may not get justice. There is a lot of anger about missing aboriginal women in Canada, for example. The suspicion is that the police don't give a flying fig about their deaths.

[maarsen]

The naming of murder victims and those accused of crimes is rather important in that the purpose of doing so is to prevent coverups by those in power. Would society be any better off if people just disappeared from view with no explanation as to why or were put in prison, again with no public explanation? Freedom of the press to report such stuff is extremely important. Robert Pickton got away with all his murders because they were not reported to the public. Aboriginal women are disappearing and being murdered at an alarming rate here in Canada and we have a government that ignores this.  

[Arkhangel]

I feel like the above two posts are conflating a lot of issues.

 

(1) Not publicising a victim's name at the request of their family is hardly a cover-up, particularly if it's reported in the media that it's not being publicised. Allegations of cover-ups are pretty melodramatic.

 

(2) There is a difference between freedom of the press and not publicising an issue. I went to the supermarket today. If the press wants to report on that, they're free to do so but I'm not going to call a press conference to tell them about it.

 

(3) The murders of aboriginal women are terrible, but to be blunt the police don't give a fig about them whether their names are public or whether they aren't. Moreover, some cultures have cultural sensitivities around dead people, e.g. in Australia for some aboriginal people it's totally taboo to see images of people who have died. I can't imagine how traumatic it would be for a family like that to see their loved one's face splashed across a front page.