Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

selowitch · Mar 19, 2009, 09:37 AM

I must be dense but here's something I don't quite understand: Why do defendants in trials for serious crimes sometimes try to hide their faces under a jacket or poncho or something? It's not like nobody knows who they are and somebody else will take the blame. Is it because the perp doesn't want people to see his/her expression or tears? Is it done out of shame? I can't come up with an entirely satisfactory answer to this.

Maybe it's so their face doesn't become associated with the crime so in case they are acquitted they can rejoin society without recriminations?

lyanma · Mar 19, 2009, 09:49 AM

Not everyone knows who they are, or what that person looks like.
So, that being said, maybe that person can hopefully rejoin society in another state where no one knows who they are.

Timo · Mar 19, 2009, 09:53 AM

Because they're ashamed?

selowitch · 01:39 PM

Yeah, I guess it could be any combination of

to shield one's identity from cameras in hopes of returning to society somewhere at some time;
to avoid being identified (and subsequently killed or harassed) in prison (cf., Jeffrey Dahmer);
to keep from having objects thrown at them (or at least avoiding getting hit in the face by said objects; see also Bush, George W. and shoes, thrown);
as an expression of abject shame.

Timo · Mar 19, 2009, 10:04 AM

In some cases, the defendant may also want to deny the photographers (literal assailants with their cameras) the satisfaction of getting what they want -- an expression of defiance or remorse or really anything saleable. More sophisticated criminals may adopt a game face. Maddoff, for example, has been good in denying the tabloids any particularly interesting pictures, and in so doing, has reduced (by some margin, probably not much) their ability to profit from his mug.

Doofy · Mar 19, 2009, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by selowitch

Maybe it's so their face doesn't become associated with the crime so in case they are acquitted they can rejoin society without recriminations?

Yes.
For example, a rape charge tends to "stick" in the minds of the local community even when the bloke's been found to be completely innocent. Many a life has been destroyed this way.

Salty · Mar 19, 2009, 11:02 AM

Same reason celebs do it... cause scientology says so.

selowitch · Mar 19, 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes.
For example, a rape charge tends to "stick" in the minds of the local community even when the bloke's been found to be completely innocent. Many a life has been destroyed this way.

What are the statistics? I'd be curious to know how many is "many"? I do know that a whole lot of spurious rape charges were filed against black men in the Old South on the mere suspicion of looking at a white woman the wrong way, which was probably entirely trumped up in all but a handful of cases; moreover, even in those few cases where something untoward perhaps really was going on, the rape charges likely would not have held up absent clearly racist jurisprudence and juries.

Doofy · Mar 19, 2009, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by selowitch

What are the statistics? I'd be curious to know how many is "many"?

Couldn't tell ya, sorry. I know of two instances with folks I know (one lost his job and house, the other ended up being a shut-in). And, of course, you hear about this kind of thing all the time (in the newspapers, from other folks - my mother was on jury duty for a rape case last December, bloke was innocent and went through a lot of crap).

selowitch · Mar 19, 2009, 02:02 PM

It must be very difficult to strike the proper balance between protecting women and the public in general from rapists while at the same time honoring the rights of the accused (particularly the innocent).

Tacking back toward the original topic, wouldn't it be better to shield the defendants' faces for them rather than making them put a jacket over their heads? Humiliating someone prior to trial doesn't seem like a wise policy.

Salty · Mar 19, 2009, 02:03 PM

My sister is a defense lawyer. She's got a case coming up where she plans on lambasting the woman who said the guy grabbed her down by the river and forced her to have sex with him and she was on her back. My sister plans on pointing out that the woman had grass stains on her knees when she talked to the cops. In actual fact she was just really bad at giving head, and when the guy said sorry let's just forget about it, she decided to accuse him of rape.

selowitch · 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

My sister is a defense lawyer. She's got a case coming up where she plans on lambasting the woman who said the guy grabbed her down by the river and forced her to have sex with him and she was on her back. My sister plans on pointing out that the woman had grass stains on her knees when she talked to the cops. In actual fact she was just really bad at giving head, and when the guy said sorry let's just forget about it, she decided to accuse him of rape.

I see. And how does your sister know with absolute certainty that the alleged victim wasn't on her knees because the alleged perpetrator intended to murder her execution-style, but was interrupted by something? I'm not saying it couldn't have happened the way your sister describes it, but based on what you've presented there are many other possible explanations.

Perhaps the woman intended for the encounter to end with oral sex and the man wanted to take it another step further, and when she refused, he raped her. Or perhaps the oral sex itself was forcible?

Selowitch, apparently, is an accidental, non-expert witness for the prosecution. ;-)

Not a bad theory for the defense to present, however.

ort888 · Mar 19, 2009, 02:09 PM

I'm more interested to know why every excited young woman on a gameshow or reality tv covers their face with both hands. What's the deal with that?

selowitch · Mar 19, 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

I'm more interested to know why every excited young woman on a gameshow or reality tv covers their face with both hands. What's the deal with that?

I don't know, but I've seen little girls do this, too, when they're excited to the point of embarrassment. Perhaps an evolutionary psychologist could shed some light?

SpaceMonkey · Mar 19, 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

My sister is a defense lawyer. She's got a case coming up where she plans on lambasting the woman who said the guy grabbed her down by the river and forced her to have sex with him and she was on her back. My sister plans on pointing out that the woman had grass stains on her knees when she talked to the cops. In actual fact she was just really bad at giving head, and when the guy said sorry let's just forget about it, she decided to accuse him of rape.

What?

Salty · Mar 19, 2009, 02:27 PM

That's just a bit of the evidence. In general the physical evidence doesn't add up on her side, and apparently the crown doesn't even think they have a case but because it's a rape charge they HAVE to take it to trial. They've admitted my sister's client should be let go in private.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 19, 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

My sister is a defense lawyer. She's got a case coming up where she plans on lambasting the woman who said the guy grabbed her down by the river and forced her to have sex with him and she was on her back. My sister plans on pointing out that the woman had grass stains on her knees when she talked to the cops. In actual fact she was just really bad at giving head, and when the guy said sorry let's just forget about it, she decided to accuse him of rape.

Your sister must be a phenomenally sh!tty lawyer if she is discussing the details of a case with you, particularly discussing the case before it goes to trial.

Geez Salty, is everyone in your family messed in the head?

OreoCookie · Mar 19, 2009, 02:31 PM

It's not just courts, newspapers are even worse.
There have been quite a few cases here where a guy just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and was brought in for questioning in, say, a rape case or a case of child abuse. Next day, his face is on the usual tabloids, and some of his distant neighbors recognize him. Even though he is cleared a few days later, some people still associate him with that crime.

And even if you are in court, you're innocent until proven guilty. It's not about statistics, it's about the right to anonymity. Even if they are guilty, the accused do have a right to privacy.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 19, 2009, 02:33 PM

I don't think anyone formally charged with a crime has a right to anonymity. It's a matter of public record.

Salty · Mar 19, 2009, 02:34 PM

Hardly a murder trial, and she didn't break any confidentiality. And my sister though I don't exactly like her, is actually a really good lawyer. In general though my family aren't always agreeable, we tend to be pretty good at anything we care to try our hands at.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 19, 2009, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I don't think anyone formally charged with a crime has a right to anonymity. It's a matter of public record.

Absolutely correct. But the contents of the discussions between attorney and client are now and will always remain privileged conversations unless both the client and attorney agree to waive their right to confidentiality.

What Salty's sister did is not reveal the details of a crime. She revealed the details of attorney-client discussions without--I am assuming; but I think it is a safe assumption--obtaining permission to do so from her client.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 19, 2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I don't think anyone formally charged with a crime has a right to anonymity. It's a matter of public record.

There is the matter of public record.

Then there is the matter of public INTEREST.

And THEN there is the matter of media bridging the gap and GENERATING interest. And THIS is the point where both the formally charged, but not convicted, AND the convicted, do indeed have a right to privacy.

In many places including most of Europe, even convicted criminals have a right to privacy, because once their sentence is served, their guilt is amended and they have the right to a fair chance at societal reintegration (that's why they're often called correctional facilities). It's difficult to reintegrate into society if everybody knows your full name and face from the press coverage at the time.

There was a rather prominent court case here in Germany in 1972, where one of a three people involved in a 1969 attack on a munitions depot, during which several soldiers died, won against a TV station that had planned to preface a documentary/drama with the full names and photographs of the perpetrators.
The argumentation was that while current events may warrant naming convicted criminals with their full name in the public interest, once the "current event" interest has subsided, the priorities shift towards privacy of the delinquent in rehabilitation, and the situation must be re-evaluated.

OreoCookie · Mar 20, 2009, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I don't think anyone formally charged with a crime has a right to anonymity. It's a matter of public record.

... so are the victims, witnesses, etc., they're all part of the `public record.' But that doesn't mean they relinquish the right to their privacy either. You'd have to extend that `no right to anonymity' to these groups as well.

Why are so many thinking of accused as convicted?

Doofy · Mar 20, 2009, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Why are so many thinking of accused as convicted?

In Amerika, there's:

1) The guilty.
2) The guilty who got off on a technicality.
3) The guilty who haven't been caught yet.

There's no innocent folks. Innocent folks don't make for good media circus.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 20, 2009, 06:29 AM

And if the tabloids want to exploit any of those three categories of people, it's their goddamn right in a free country to sell whatever the hell they want on a free market.

After all, if somebody gets off, he can always litigate.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 20, 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

... so are the victims, witnesses, etc., they're all part of the `public record.' But that doesn't mean they relinquish the right to their privacy either. You'd have to extend that `no right to anonymity' to these groups as well.

Why are so many thinking of accused as convicted?

I make a distinction between anonymity and privacy.

OreoCookie · Mar 20, 2009, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I make a distinction between anonymity and privacy.

... and since the average Joe is in the phone book naming a person or releasing a clear photo (in conjunction with the location) pretty much kills their privacy.

Laminar · Mar 20, 2009, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

In Amerika, there's:

1) The guilty.
2) The guilty who got off on a technicality.
3) The guilty who haven't been caught yet.

There's no innocent folks. Innocent folks don't make for good media circus.

Ah, spelling "America" with a "k." Klevar. Not worn out. wink

SpaceMonkey · Mar 20, 2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

... and since the average Joe is in the phone book naming a person or releasing a clear photo (in conjunction with the location) pretty much kills their privacy.

I agree it has an impact on their privacy. I'm not sure what, realistically, can be done to prevent that. The AP, for example, already makes it a policy to not reveal the names of witnesses and victims in sexual-related crimes.

Dakar V · Mar 20, 2009, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Ah, spelling "America" with a "k." Klevar. Not worn out. wink

I've never understood the significance either. Same with Clinton with a 'k'. Is this some type of reference to the KKK?

Doofy · Mar 20, 2009, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

I've never understood the significance either. Same with Clinton with a 'k'. Is this some type of reference to the KKK?

No, it's some sort of reference to communist Russia.

Dakar V · Mar 20, 2009, 11:42 AM

What part?

Doofy · Mar 20, 2009, 11:46 AM

What part of what?

Dakar V · Mar 20, 2009, 11:47 AM

What part is it referencing?

Doofy · Mar 20, 2009, 11:55 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(TV_miniseries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY

That explain it?

Dakar V · Mar 20, 2009, 11:57 AM

I don't know. You can't summarize it in a sentence or two?

Doofy · Mar 20, 2009, 12:11 PM

No. But if you click on that top link, wiki can.

Dakar V · Mar 20, 2009, 12:22 PM

It appears to be a disambiguation, rather than a straight-forward entry or answer. It's alright, I'll live.

waxcrash · Mar 20, 2009, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

In Amerika, there's:

1) The guilty.
2) The guilty who got off on a technicality.
3) The guilty who haven't been caught yet.

There's no innocent folks. Innocent folks don't make for good media circus.

There is also the innocent who get charged and the charges dropped, but the arrest sticks with you. Ten years ago I was arrested for a misdemeanor for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I didn't do anything wrong or illegal, but the cops grabbed everyone there because a fight broke out. I bailed out that day and the next month at court the charges were dropped. But to this day whenever I travel outside the U.S. if the border patrol runs my name through the computer, I get questioned for at least an hour. They ask why/what I was arrested for. Last time I went to Canada, this happened to me. Trying to explain to a border agent that being arrested and convicted in the U.S. are two different things is not fun. They assume because you were arrested, you're guilty.

Cold Warrior · Mar 20, 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by waxcrash

There is also the innocent who get charged and the charges dropped, but the arrest sticks with you. Ten years ago I was arrested for a misdemeanor for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I didn't do anything wrong or illegal, but the cops grabbed everyone there because a fight broke out. I bailed out that day and the next month at court the charges were dropped. But to this day whenever I travel outside the U.S. if the border patrol runs my name through the computer, I get questioned for at least an hour. They ask why/what I was arrested for. Last time I went to Canada, this happened to me. Trying to explain to a border agent that being arrested and convicted in the U.S. are two different things is not fun. They assume because you were arrested, you're guilty.

After the charges were dropped, you should have petitioned to have your record expunged. This would have gotten it out of most records except possibly the FBI or other federal databases (not sure how they work). It may not be too late to still do this.

Doofy · Mar 20, 2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by waxcrash

Ten years ago I was arrested for a misdemeanor for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I didn't do anything wrong or illegal, but the cops grabbed everyone there because a fight broke out. I bailed out that day and the next month at court the charges were dropped.

So, got off on a technicality then?

olePigeon · Mar 20, 2009, 05:59 PM

Sometimes if it's a particularly bad case (like some person killed/raped a bunch of people) or if it's a witness testifying against a violent group, they'll make the person wear a bullet-proof vest and cover their head with a jacket or poncho to make it more difficult for someone else to kill the person.

brassplayersrock² · Mar 20, 2009, 06:16 PM

Haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take.

They could be hiding because they don't want people at the jail they're possibly going to, to know what he or she looks like.

Child molesters (for example) don't last long in jail once the word spreads of their crime.

ghporter · Mar 20, 2009, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, it's some sort of reference to communist Russia.

I always thought it was a reference to the Nazis. Lots of German words are like English words except spelled with a 'k' instead of a 'c'...

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, got off on a technicality then?

Like technically he didn't do anything, yeah. Your observation about the media is spot on, but I think you could have phrased it to point out you were talking about the media and not The Truth. Most media today are not interested in truth with a big T or a little t, just "viewership" so they can charge more for advertising. Depending on TV for news is not a smart idea. If you believed TV, every US city would be awash with blood from all the violence, but interestingly enough, it's often hard to find a witness for any sort of violent encounter, mainly because In Truth they're rare, they're isolated, and they're almost always between people who know each other. Not "good TV" but good Truth...

waxcrash · Mar 20, 2009, 07:15 PM

I speculate as others that hiding your face is a sign of shame or embarrassment.

This is a little cheesy, but have any of you seen the show Lie to Me? It's on Hulu. It's about a scientist who is a human 'lie detector' and can read peoples' emotions based on their facial expressions and body language. I think when you cover your face, it means you are trying to hide something. It doesn't mean the person is showing guilt, but rather embarrassment or the situation is so emotional overwhelming that covering your face is the easiest way to escape the situation.

Have you ever watched a game show on TV were the person won or someone who won big at a casino? Some people when they get so excited, palm their hands over their face. Why do they do that? I'm no behavioral psychologist, but my guess is they are embarrassed by their emotions and the easiest way to hide those emotions is by putting a physical barrier over their face, hence covering it with their hands.

When someone is charged with a crime but not found guilty yet, the same may apply. They are so overwhelmed with embarrassment and shame of being in the situation, and they don't want others to see their emotions on their face so they cover it.

Doofy · Mar 20, 2009, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I always thought it was a reference to the Nazis. Lots of German words are like English words except spelled with a 'k' instead of a 'c'...

Either/or.
Throughout the Cold War, your Department of State printed and distributed a Russian-language propaganda magazine about the US... ...called "Amerika".