WILLIAMSON CO., Ill. - We've got to clear up something that popped up after we published the article this weekend about some kids getting up to no good out of Williamson County.
I'll post a screencap of the comment here.
(For those mobile-y challenged who might not be able to see the image), the incorrect assessment comes from a Charlien George, who asserts "Whatever news posted the story is going to get sued they are not supposed to talk about juveniles they're not supposed to say their name or their age."
Lack of punctuation aside, that run-on sentence is very wrong; it's following a fallacy which lazy, inept media has used for ages so they don't have to cover certain crimes or incidents that occur in their area. Years ago, in 2007, we had this very thing happen to us for the first time when we produced articles about the group of football boys in Mt. Carmel who were alleged to have gone and beaten up two other boys in town, all of it over a girl. There were young teens among the group (14 to 16 years of age) and the whining was rampant because their parents were amongst the uppity POCs (people of the community) who were used to throwing their weight (read: status) around in order to get their way. That didn't happen in this case because the prosecutor at the time didn't care who they were, he was going to charge the boys based on what they did, and not NOT charge them based on "who their parents were." We have the same policy: Doesn't matter what POCs say, we cover the news. Other media might not, but we do.
At that time, with the help of this particular prosecutor and one of our media attorneys up in Springfield, we learned what the Illinois Juvenile Justice Act (IJJA) actually SAYS: That juveniles accused of crimes most certainly CAN be named by news outlets, if that information is independently obtained (from someone not a public official, essentially; although we've gotten "leaks" from public officials regarding identities of juvie offenders). Those quality people (leakers) take a risk, because under the IJJA, those who CANNOT name juvenile offenders are officers of the court, which incidentally means that if we learn the name only in a court setting (yes, media can attend juvenile hearings all day long, which we have in the past), we cannot publish it...but that's the ONLY time. If we know the name in advance of attending the court hearing, we absolutely can name the offender, as well as tell what went down in juvenile court; if we find out the name from another source after the court hearing, we can still publish it as long as it's from a source independent of a court official. A judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, cops, bailiffs, court reporters, court personnel like circuit clerks or deputy clerks, etc., are prohibited by law (the IJJA) from disclosing any details about a child charged with a crime that can identify that child. That would include name, date of birth (NOT age. Age is allowed), address (NOT hometown; that's allowed also) and who the parents are. That's about it. Prosecutors, cops, and certain other officers of the court are actually ALLOWED and ENCOURAGED by Supreme Court Rule 3.6 to give out some specifics such as age, hometown, and the crime with which the child is charged, particularly if it's an ongoing thing and there's a danger to the public (such as escapees, like the ones from Franklin County recently). If the info isn't submitted to the news media for dissemination to the public, the media can actually make a request under 3.6 and force the public officials in charge of this information to cough it up. We've done it more times in the past 18 years (which is when the SC Rule was developed, in March of 2000) than we can count. That's because some court officials are just like some (okay; most) mainstream media: Lazy, and don't want to do their jobs, nor even know what their jobs are. And because other media has fomented this inaccurate notion, we have people like the creatively-named Charlien whining about something that not only is she incorrect about, but apparently knows nothing about at all except probably what she's "heard tha TEEVEE say!" (News flash, Charlien: There's not some magical protectant that ensues when a child is charged with a crime. There's just not.)
But there's a further piece of info to this particular instance.
The two girls who were involved in those antics over the weekend were actually the interviewees. Our correspondent, Becky, actually went to them and asked if they would talk to her. They consented, and so that's self-identification, which is also allowed. Doesn't matter what some "guardian" or step-parent or whatever wants to say after the fact: If the girls were in the presence of someone in the place of a parent (in loco parentis, which they were), and they give the interview, that's their choice. They actually can say something even if not in loco parentis; it's their right as the accused. They DO NOT have to "talk to a lawyer first." That's getting the interview situation confused with someone being CHARGED with a crime, not merely talking about one (that also tends to indicate that whoever is making that claim has watched too many TV court dramas, but that's kind of a given at this point). So that's not a factor in this, at all. The girls self-identified, they can do that, they did it, end of story.
So whoever all these big-n-bad armchair legal beagles think they are, they can certainly go talk to an attorney about it. Said attorney will be happy to take your money, then tell you there's nothing you can do. We'd recommend some, but that'd be like recommending which poisonous snake you'd like to be bitten by: Copperhead, Cottonmouth or Rattler. They're ALL toxic, so pick your own poison. They might even charge you a little extra to do "research" on the IJJA. But you can do that yourself. Unless, of course, you're like mainstream media and are lazy, and just want to forward the fallacy of "Thay cain't preeunt thuh nayme uv uh JOO-VIN-NILLLLLLE whin thur chawerged wiff uh CRAHHHM!!" (It's hickinese; say it slowly at first, then apply dialect and say it faster and you'll know what it means).
We can, we have for years at this publication, identified juvenile offenders, and we'll continue to do so, despite the gripings of the clueless. So lay off of Becky. She's just doing her job, and doing it well.