U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Wisconsin > Milwaukee
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2009, 10:57 PM
 
11 posts, read 30,129 times
Reputation: 13

Advertisements

Thanks for the responses - I really appreciate any rational discussion on this topic. To answer your concerns...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse276 View Post
Why shouldn't we be allowed to know what cases are being heard?
I agree, or at least I am less adamantly opposed to this idea. However, once someone is found not guilty then I believe that the legally innocent person's right to privacy should outweigh the public's right to have such easy access to court records.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse276 View Post
If anything, CCAP should be expanded to have more public information available. An open government requires open access, even to court proceedings that yielded no convictions.
This is circular reasoning. You are essentially saying, "I like CCAP because we have an open government." Well, sure. But at some point an individual citizen's right to privacy outweighs the benefit derived from publishing everything on the internet.

For example, I guarantee that people wouldn't like it if the DMV published a website that listed everyone's height and weight, or if CCAP listed the names of sexual assault victims. Yet, according to the arguments I see here, this is all a matter of public record, so the more we can publish the better, right?

Think about it this way: Imagine a defendant is found not guilty at trial, and someone later finds this on CCAP. The only use that exists for that information is for discrimination. Thus, that person, although legally innocent (and perhaps actually innocent), will have to continuously fight against a tide of unnecessary prejudice in their personal and professional lives. This is exactly what isn't supposed to happen.


Quote:
People here are foregtting the fact that all the info that is avaiable on CCAP is deemed public records anyway. So therefore if their was no CCAP then all one would have to do is file a open public records request.
That's fine with me. I'm not saying that court records shouldn't be available to the public. I'm saying that CCAP makes it far to easy to access them, and it results in unnecessary and in some cases life-altering discrimination. Just because we have new technology doesn't mean we should operate society with an utter disregard for our privacy.

 
Old 09-18-2009, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
118 posts, read 268,144 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse276 View Post
I don't see the problem with opening up more information that is now locked up in bureaucrats' offices or filed away somewhere.

If anything, CCAP should be expanded to have more public information available. An open government requires open access, even to court proceedings that yielded no convictions.
This. I 100% agree with everything here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post
People here are foregtting the fact that all the info that is avaiable on CCAP is deemed public records anyway. So therefore if their was no CCAP then all one would have to do is file a open public records request.
That's what these anti-CCAP people don't get. They think that somehow all these records will go away. I got news for them: the don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post
That's it I'm Done!
It's kinda like talking to a brick wall after a while, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
I agree, or at least I am less adamantly opposed to this idea. However, once someone is found not guilty then I believe that the legally innocent person's right to privacy should outweigh the public's right to have such easy access to court records.
Those cases appeared on the docket, that's why they're on CCAP. Anything on the Wisconsin Circuit Court docket appears on CCAP. That's why that stuff is there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
This is circular reasoning. You are essentially saying, "I like CCAP because we have an open government." Well, sure. But at some point an individual citizen's right to privacy outweighs the benefit derived from publishing everything on the internet.
And at some point the rights of law-abiding people to live in safety outweigh a criminal defendant's perceived right of privacy. After all, the Constitution says that the government should look out for our well-being, but nowhere does it guarantee privacy to criminal defendants.

I live in a community where a lot of stuff goes down. I appreciate CCAP and have used in multiple times to find out someone's background. As a matter of fact, after a CCAP check on someone, I found out he was a pretty nasty piece of work. Turned out to have multiple convictions of robbery and murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
For example, I guarantee that people wouldn't like it if the DMV published a website that listed everyone's height and weight, or if CCAP listed the names of sexual assault victims. Yet, according to the arguments I see here, this is all a matter of public record, so the more we can publish the better, right?
That is absurd. First off, CCAP doesn't list the names of any victims, let alone sexual assault. Secondly, the victims of sexual assault are afforded legal protection. VICTIMS should get rights!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
Think about it this way: Imagine a defendant is found not guilty at trial, and someone later finds this on CCAP. The only use that exists for that information is for discrimination. Thus, that person, although legally innocent (and perhaps actually innocent), will have to continuously fight against a tide of unnecessary prejudice in their personal and professional lives. This is exactly what isn't supposed to happen.
I would actually like to see some proof of this happening. So far I have seen none.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
That's fine with me. I'm not saying that court records shouldn't be available to the public. I'm saying that CCAP makes it far to easy to access them
That argument makes no sense at all. Rights mean nothing if the people can't exercise them with ease. If the public has the right to do something, like view public records, receive an education, vote, etc., then all impediments that can be removed are supposed to be removed. So says only about 200 years of legal precedent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
Just because we have new technology doesn't mean we should operate society with an utter disregard for our privacy.
Just because we have new technology DOES mean we should take advantage of it to make our government as open as possible and to identify dangerous individuals to as many people as possible.

On the internet are many "WANTED" sites and pages. However, since they have not been convicted, they are also considered innocent under the law. Should we stop publishing those "WANTED" spots too?
 
Old 09-18-2009, 11:03 AM
 
Location: East Side Milwaukee
652 posts, read 849,651 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
I agree, or at least I am less adamantly opposed to this idea. However, once someone is found not guilty then I believe that the legally innocent person's right to privacy should outweigh the public's right to have such easy access to court records.
As for a legally innocent person's right to privacy, this is beyond that. CCAP is not a way to lookup criminal convictions, it is a window into the court system and all its cases, not only convictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
This is circular reasoning. You are essentially saying, "I like CCAP because we have an open government." Well, sure. But at some point an individual citizen's right to privacy outweighs the benefit derived from publishing everything on the internet.

For example, I guarantee that people wouldn't like it if the DMV published a website that listed everyone's height and weight, or if CCAP listed the names of sexual assault victims. Yet, according to the arguments I see here, this is all a matter of public record, so the more we can publish the better, right?
Another poster answered this very well, but more public access to the public record is better than less. It's not like those weights are accurate anyway at the DMV, most people would be flattered for other people to think they weighed 20lbs less.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
Think about it this way: Imagine a defendant is found not guilty at trial, and someone later finds this on CCAP. The only use that exists for that information is for discrimination. Thus, that person, although legally innocent (and perhaps actually innocent), will have to continuously fight against a tide of unnecessary prejudice in their personal and professional lives. This is exactly what isn't supposed to happen.


That's fine with me. I'm not saying that court records shouldn't be available to the public. I'm saying that CCAP makes it far to easy to access them, and it results in unnecessary and in some cases life-altering discrimination. Just because we have new technology doesn't mean we should operate society with an utter disregard for our privacy.
I would say the onus is on you to prove this, stating your theory doesn't make it fact.
 
Old 09-18-2009, 02:05 PM
 
11 posts, read 30,129 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse276 View Post
As for a legally innocent person's right to privacy, this is beyond that. CCAP is not a way to lookup criminal convictions, it is a window into the court system and all its cases, not only convictions.
This is not an argument for your position, but rather circular reasoning. You are merely stating a fact - that it is CCAP's policy to be a window into the courts. My argument is that this policy is wrong and that CCAP shouldn't display cases resulting in non-guilt because it results in prejudice against innocent people.


Quote:
Another poster answered this very well, but more public access to the public record is better than less.
Just because we have an open records state does not mean that it has to include every record - especially when there is a compelling reason to not make something public. We don't disclose the identities of rape victims in order to protect their privacy, yet the victims of wrongful arrest are given no privacy at all. They are both victims, but one is branded for life because of an unsound state policy unique to our particular state.

Quote:
It's not like those weights are accurate anyway at the DMV, most people would be flattered for other people to think they weighed 20lbs less.
I seriously doubt this, but if you really believe people would support having scans of their drivers license online then fine.

Quote:
I would say the onus is on you to prove this, stating your theory doesn't make it fact.
I didn't know that my "theory" was so absurd, but fine - I will illustrate to you that people discriminate against others for crimes they were found not guilty of. Read the letter beginning on page 2 (its just over a page long): http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/comt...0221101830.pdf


Quote:
Originally Posted by KC3700
Those cases appeared on the docket, that's why they're on CCAP. Anything on the Wisconsin Circuit Court docket appears on CCAP. That's why that stuff is there.
Well if I may quote you, now I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. I completely understand the logistical causes for dismissed cases appearing on CCAP. Unfortunately for you, that is not an argument in support of your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC3700
After all, the Constitution says that the government should look out for our well-being, but nowhere does it guarantee privacy to criminal defendants.
Haha, well I really didn't think there was a constitutional issue here, but if you insist... No, the constitution does not "guarantee" privacy to criminal defendants. But (1) Your "well-being" argument cuts both ways, since the well-being of the innocent people on CCAP is surely harmed; (2) And the cases I am referring to have no "criminal defendants," just citizens who were found innocent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC3700
I found out he was a pretty nasty piece of work. Turned out to have multiple convictions of robbery and murder.
That's wonderful, and exactly how CCAP should be used - against people who were found guilty. Good work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KC3700
That is absurd. First off, CCAP doesn't list the names of any victims, let alone sexual assault. Secondly, the victims of sexual assault are afforded legal protection. VICTIMS should get rights!!
I don't think you could have misunderstood my argument any more than you did here, so I will clarify:

CCAP does not list victims, even though their names are public record, because we want to protect their privacy. I agree with this policy. My argument is that people who are wrongfully accused are also victims, and should have the ability to clear their name from CCAP to protect their privacy. Do you disagree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC3700
I would actually like to see some proof of this happening. So far I have seen none.
See the link I provided above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC3700
Just because we have new technology DOES mean we should take advantage of it ... to identify dangerous individuals to as many people as possible.
Exactly - leave convictions up on CCAP, and remove the names of innocent people. I do not disagree with you at all on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC3700
On the internet are many "WANTED" sites and pages. However, since they have not been convicted, they are also considered innocent under the law. Should we stop publishing those "WANTED" spots too?
Of course not. But surely you acknowledge there is a distinction between a person who is wanted and fleeing from police and someone who has had a full trial and been found innocent, right? Yet we continue to torture these people...



Have you guys lost all regard for your personal privacy??
 
Old 09-18-2009, 02:49 PM
 
Location: um....guess
10,483 posts, read 9,672,198 times
Reputation: 1793
Why is this thread still going on? All the arguments against CCAP are pathetic. If a case is dismissed or you are found not guilty, an employer cannot look at it & use it against you, plain & simple. If you don't want your life to be on CCAP, well then I guess you shouldn't commit a crime, right? Duh. I've got a civil suit on CCAP, do I care? Um, no.
 
Old 09-18-2009, 02:50 PM
 
Location: um....guess
10,483 posts, read 9,672,198 times
Reputation: 1793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
This is not an argument for your position, but rather circular reasoning. You are merely stating a fact - that it is CCAP's policy to be a window into the courts. My argument is that this policy is wrong and that CCAP shouldn't display cases resulting in non-guilt because it results in prejudice against innocent people.


Just because we have an open records state does not mean that it has to include every record - especially when there is a compelling reason to not make something public. We don't disclose the identities of rape victims in order to protect their privacy, yet the victims of wrongful arrest are given no privacy at all. They are both victims, but one is branded for life because of an unsound state policy unique to our particular state.

I seriously doubt this, but if you really believe people would support having scans of their drivers license online then fine.

I didn't know that my "theory" was so absurd, but fine - I will illustrate to you that people discriminate against others for crimes they were found not guilty of. Read the letter beginning on page 2 (its just over a page long): http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/comt...0221101830.pdf




Well if I may quote you, now I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. I completely understand the logistical causes for dismissed cases appearing on CCAP. Unfortunately for you, that is not an argument in support of your position.



Haha, well I really didn't think there was a constitutional issue here, but if you insist... No, the constitution does not "guarantee" privacy to criminal defendants. But (1) Your "well-being" argument cuts both ways, since the well-being of the innocent people on CCAP is surely harmed; (2) And the cases I am referring to have no "criminal defendants," just citizens who were found innocent.



That's wonderful, and exactly how CCAP should be used - against people who were found guilty. Good work.




I don't think you could have misunderstood my argument any more than you did here, so I will clarify:

CCAP does not list victims, even though their names are public record, because we want to protect their privacy. I agree with this policy. My argument is that people who are wrongfully accused are also victims, and should have the ability to clear their name from CCAP to protect their privacy. Do you disagree?



See the link I provided above.



Exactly - leave convictions up on CCAP, and remove the names of innocent people. I do not disagree with you at all on this.



Of course not. But surely you acknowledge there is a distinction between a person who is wanted and fleeing from police and someone who has had a full trial and been found innocent, right? Yet we continue to torture these people...



Have you guys lost all regard for your personal privacy??
Can you keep your posts to a minimum please, they're annoyingly long, thanks.
 
Old 09-18-2009, 03:17 PM
 
Location: East Side Milwaukee
652 posts, read 849,651 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
This is not an argument for your position, but rather circular reasoning. You are merely stating a fact - that it is CCAP's policy to be a window into the courts. My argument is that this policy is wrong and that CCAP shouldn't display cases resulting in non-guilt because it results in prejudice against innocent people.

It is not circular reasoning, CCAP is accomplishing its goals and so it should remain. In a democracy, government should be open and provide accountability, CCAP helps to do that. As you said, CCAP's policy is to be a window into the courts and that is to further open government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquette3L View Post
I didn't know that my "theory" was so absurd, but fine - I will illustrate to you that people discriminate against others for crimes they were found not guilty of. Read the letter beginning on page 2 (its just over a page long): http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/comt...0221101830.pdf
That letter is just one person claiming that they have been discriminated against, but it offers no proof. How do I know the person isn't just an incompetant person that can't get a job in a recession? Why is it because of their charge that they were exonerated from?


Either way, I said I didn't want to wade too deep into this, so have fun all...
 
Old 09-18-2009, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Mequon
6,861 posts, read 12,260,725 times
Reputation: 3026
I think this thread has run it's course....DONE!
 
Old 09-18-2009, 09:34 PM
 
Location: um....guess
10,483 posts, read 9,672,198 times
Reputation: 1793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post
I think this thread has run it's course....DONE!
I think so as well.
 
Old 09-19-2009, 05:23 AM
 
Location: Chicago
36,588 posts, read 57,867,463 times
Reputation: 25609
I beg to differ. After all this time, a couple folks have actually made it interesting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Wisconsin > Milwaukee
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top