Statutory Citations in Newspapers: Why Not?

Factual Questions
21

A concise synopsis:

The question (not a trolling):

Given that crime/lawsuit-related news articles often leave the reader unclear or misinformed as to a charge/prayer involved, why do not the these article include either 1) a concise wording of the charge/prayer that is accurate, unambiguous and understandable to most of the public or 2) in the case of a criminal charge, simply state the criminal code section of the specific charge filed or to be filed as a result of the incident subject of the article.

The answers given so far have been:

  1. Either would take up too much column space.
  2. Almost no one wants this information.
  3. Most people wouldn’t understand / be able to use such.
  4. I don’t need it.
  5. People can tell the difference between murder and rape, etc
  6. The reader can get what he needs in that respect at the library.
  7. The reader can get same at the courthouse.
  8. All law in the US is in Plain English. . .but we’re still working on making it so.
  9. Criminals couldn’t figure it out.
  10. The newspapers are not an arm of the courts and their only responsibility is to sell the maximum number of newspapers.

Do not post additional argument supporting one of these answers. If you want to support one, just state its above number in a post of yours.

I have put content and links in my posts to this thread. Others have put mostly unauthorized “authoritative” and directive comments in their posts.

The above question is posed from a standpoint external to the professions of journalism and law; it is not asking for information simply sourced in either of these professions. Do not be expected to be taken as an authority on the answer(s) to my question; this is part of the Straight Dope. “Straight” here should mean undistorted by authorities which claim more than they have the right to.

I would like now to add one item here that parallels a legal code citation, which item is implemented in newspapers, and is very faithfully done at present in the SF Chronicle:

Almost every news article in that paper, which is centered about a certain geographical location, either in the Bay Area, the state of CA, the US or somewhere else in the world, is accompanied by a small map of the surrounding area of that location, which also includes an inset showing where, within a larger natural or political entity, the large-scale mapped area is located. These maps, though small and of limited detail, take up considerable space in the news-story area of the newspaper.

Frequently, in previous weeks, there have been a number of maps of East Timor, showing the capital, Dili, and several other centers of population, as well as areas controlled by the factions there. Now, what percentage of Americans have people in East Timor or otherwise relate to the internal geography of it? How does the layout there help the average reader to understand more than that West Timor is part of Indonesia (formerly Dutch) and East Timor is the other half of the island (formerly Portuguese and later annexed by Indonesia)? (I would link one of these maps, but the Chron doesn’t put them online, and my scanner ist kaputt.)

I appreciate such maps, but so many Americans tell me they can’t even read maps. So why is not the Chronicle, now a Hearst paper, not selling off this map space to advertisers – according to pldennison’s theory?

Ray

22

Also, in regard to my admission – to Temujin in re his comment that local jurisdictions could not create differences in criminal law among themselves, due to the Equal Protect Clause of the federal Constitution – that there is a current federal constitutional challenge in a local Berkeley court case involving a city ordinance against public nudity, I neglected to point out that that challenge is only as to First Amendment rights of free speech/expression, not to the above Fourteenth Amendment clause.

This subject, of course, is technically off-topic here, but originated from this lawyer or paralegal’s off-topic effort in this thread to impress us with his knowledge of the law.

Ray

23

Your ‘concise synopsis’ was a major improvement, stylistically.
Keep up the good work.
:slight_smile:

YO-HO, ME HEARTIES! ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THE MUSICAL BATTLE AT SEA!

24

Not that it really matters, but I think you’re confusing me with someone else, Nano.

25

I am still somewhat questioning your major premise somewhat. I don’t think people really are misled or confused as to exactly what the charges are. Following are examples of lead pargraphs from this week in the local paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, along with relevant cites from the Ohio Revised Code. I don’t find them particularly confusing, and I doubt most other readers do, either.

Also, although you may want to argue that newspapers and their reporters carry a certain level of societal responsibility, you’d have a hard time convincing Mssrs. Hearst, Gannett, Murdoch, et al., of that.

Your map example does have some bearing on the matter, but I think it differs in a way I am unable to articulate at 9:30 in the morning. If I wanted to be cynical, I’d say it’s because most readers have a general idea of things that are against the law, while most are woefully uninformed about world geography. Anyway, the examples promised:

  1. A self-described handwriting expert pleaded guilty to perjury
    yesterday for lying about his credentials when he testified for a
    former public-housing executive.

F. Aurelius McKanze faces up to five years in prison.

Section 2921.11
General Assembly: 109.
Bill Number: House Bill 511
Effective Date: 1-1-74

(A) No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a
false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or
affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either
statement is material.

(B) A falsification is material, regardless of its admissibility in
evidence, if it can affect the course or outcome of the proceeding. It
is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender
mistakenly believed a falsification to be immaterial.

© It is no defense to a charge under this section that the oath or
affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner.

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of perjury, a felony
of the third degree.

2)SOUTH EUCLID - After months of behind-the-scenes haggling,
David Bartolucci, who was caught aiming a video camera up a woman’s
dress at a church carnival last July, waived his right to trial and
pleaded no contest yesterday to charges of voyeurism and possession of
criminal tools. South Euclid Municipal Judge Patricia Ann Kleri
accepted his plea and found him guilty.

If given the maximum penalty for both crimes, Bartolucci could serve
up to eight months in jail and owe the city of South Euclid $1,500 in
fines. He will be sentenced Dec. 2.

Section 2907.08
General Assembly: 122.
Bill Number: Sub. S.B. 82
Effective Date: 01/30/98

(A) No person, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the
person’s self, shall commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously
invade the privacy of another, to spy or eavesdrop upon another.

(B) No person, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the
person’s self, shall commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously
invade the privacy of another to photograph the other person in a
state of nudity.

(E)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voyeurism.

(2) A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of
the third degree.

(3) A violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of
the second degree.
Section 2923.24
General Assembly: 121
Bill Number: Amended. Sub. S.B. 2
Effective Date: 07/01/96

(A) No person shall possess or have under the person’s control any
substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it
criminally.

(B) Each of the following constitutes prima-facie evidence of criminal purpose:

(1) Possession or control of any dangerous ordnance, or the materials
or parts for making dangerous ordnance, in the absence of
circumstances indicating the dangerous ordnance, materials, or parts
are intended for legitimate use;

(2) Possession or control of any substance, device, instrument, or
article designed or specially adapted for criminal use;
© Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing criminal
tools. Except as otherwise provided in this division, possessing
criminal tools is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the
circumstances indicate that the substance, device, instrument, or
article involved in the offense was intended for use in the commission
of a felony, possessing criminal tools is a felony of the fifth
degree.
3)A Cleveland man charged with rape and gross sexual imposition
involving a girl under 13 is being sought by the FBI and the
Cleveland/Cuyahoga Fugitive Task Force. The charges against Wayne
Lowe, 31, stem from offenses occurring during 1996 and 1997, said FBI
spokesman Robert L. Hawk. Lowe also is wanted on warrants charging him
with aggravated burglary, kidnapping and robbery, all arising from an
April 2 incident on W. 6th St., Hawk said.

Section 2907.05
General Assembly: 122
Bill Number: Amended. Sub. House Bill 32
Effective Date: 03/10/98

(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse
of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to
have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other
persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:

(1) The offender purposely compels the other person, or one of the
other persons, to submit by force or threat of force.

(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is less than
thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of
that person.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of gross sexual
imposition. . . . A violation of division (A)(4) of this section is a
felony of the third degree.

© A victim need not prove physical resistance to the offender in
prosecutions under this section.

Section 2907.02
General Assembly: 122.
Bill Number: Amended Sub. House Bill 32
Effective Date: 03/10/98

(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is
not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender
but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the
following applies:

(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the
offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or
threat of force.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, a felony of the
first degree. If the offender under division (A)(1)(a) of this section
substantially impairs the other person’s judgment or control by
administering any controlled substance described in section 3719.41 of
the Revised Code to the other person surreptitiously or by force,
threat of force, or deception, the prison term imposed upon the
offender shall be one of the prison terms prescribed for a felony of
the first degree in section 2929.14 of the Revised Code that is not
less than five years. If the offender under division (A)(1)(b) of this
section purposely compels the victim to submit by force or threat of
force, whoever violates division (A)(1)(b) of this section shall be
imprisoned for life.

Section 2911.11
General Assembly: 121.
Bill Number: Amended Sub. S.B. 269
Effective Date: 07/01/96

(A) No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an
occupied structure or in a separately secured or separately occupied
portion of an occupied structure, when another person other than an
accomplice of the offender is present, with purpose to commit in the
structure or in the separately secured or separately occupied portion
of the structure any criminal offense, if any of the following apply:

(1) The offender inflicts, or attempts or threatens to inflict
physical harm on another;

(2) The offender has a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance on or about
the offender’s person or under the offender’s control.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated burglary,
a felony of the first degree.

© A

26

One Deobfuscator for sale. Cheap.

I once had a professor return a paper to me marked, “Remove the pretentious verbiage and resubmit.”

I live by those words today.

And, Nano, if you should feel the need to flame me for this, go ahead, but know this: I will never see them because I refuse to slog through another of your excrutiatingly long posts in the hope of eventually gleaning a clue as to whatever the hell it is you’re trying to say.

As to why newspapers don’t cite…They don’t have to, they don’t need to, and very few people would care if they did.

Christ!

27

NANO – I say this respectfully because you have not had the opportunity to insult me as yet becase – stay with me here – I didn’t read your post. Any time I scroll down through pages and pages of verbiage to find “continued in next post” and then see more pages and pages of verbiage, I don’t bother to read it – and, believe me, I’ll read pretty much anything.

If you want to have a conversation, fine with me, but your posts have to (a) be comprehensible; (b) have a point; and © not be longer than the Complete (Unabridged) Works of William Shakespeare.

I truly don’t mean to insult you, but if you post at the length and verbiage you’ve utilized here, you’ll be lucky if anyone takes the time to read your posts at all, much less formulate an answer.

28

Temujin:

Yes, you’re right: I did direct my comment, as to jodih’s statement about what counties can do in the way of legislation imposing criminal penalties, in error, to you instead. I’m sorry.

pldennison:

Well, they might give it lip service. At least, in the interest of public relations, I doubt they’d put the matter quite so bluntly as you did in your previous post. :wink:

[quote]
Your map example does have some bearing on the matter, but I think it differs in a way I am unable to articulate at 9:30 in the morning. If I wanted to be cynical, I’d
say it’s because most readers have a general idea of things that are against the law,
while most are woefully uninformed about world geography.
[/quote

Well, I certainly don’t deny that “most readers have a general idea of things that are against the law,” but I also certainly don’t believe that even the best informed, other than those having professional connection to a broad expanse of the law, will have a good idea of what laws are indicated by certain short terms news writers will tend to use as to certain charges, sometimes in cases where the subject laws are written in conflict with common terminology used by the public and/or confusable, as so briefly termed, with a significantly different law. I gave the example of CA-US’s PC §647.6(a) vs. PC§288(a). Also, if the news reading public is so ill-informed as to world geography, I would thing the papers – if it be their role to take the low road – ought only to show, say, that East Timor is in the East Indies (or whatever you call it these days) but not details of how far it’s capital, Dili, is from the country’s border with Indonesia. IOW, your logic seems backwards to me; from your stance, I would expect the public to be shown detailed maps only in the case that they be generally aware of world geography and how to read maps, and thus would want to see more detail than you could expect such persons to carry around in their heads. I’m generally aware of world geography, but I haven’t been tuned in on the layout of East Timor’s population centers, and thus welcomed the Chron’s detailed map of it. I would assume that, if I only cared whether they had a soccer team, I wouldn’t be interested in the detailed map. BTW, although I didn’t include it, the Chron even shows street maps of locations within cities, where appropriate.

As to your quotations of Cleveland news stories and correlate OH criminal statutes, I’m assuming, in your examples, that the text you give from the newspaper, in each case, gives no further description of the charge(s), and that excerpts of OH law you give are taken from the criminal code of that state.

  1. Yes, as to perjury, I believe that the public – to the extent that ‘lying under oath’ describes it in all jurisdictions having English-style law, at least – needs no further explication of the charge mentioned in your first example.

  2. In the case of “voyeurism and possession of criminal tools,” I would guess these descriptions wouldn’t result in any ambiguity as to code sections, but I have never seen the word ‘voyeurism’ used to refer to a crime, only to the general behavior pattern, whether exercised as a crime or otherwise. Although, the implication of the term in regard to a crime would be obvious, the Plain Dealer might wish also to use some description more familiar to its out-of-state readers, such as peeping-Tomism. I just checked the CA-US Penal Code, because I didn’t know how my state categorized this crime. It designates it, in a somewhat archaic hangover from an earlier organization of the CA Penal Code, as §647(k), within a code section listing various sorts of “disorderly conduct”, within a chapter on “miscellaneous offenses”, rather than in another chapter entitled “Invasion of Privacy”, where I would’ve expected it. Both of these chapters are in a title called simply “Miscellaneous Crimes”.

Although the description in the news article of the second charge in that case as “possession of criminal tools” seems sufficient, I’d just like to mention, in regard to the law itself, that I am bothered by such laws written so generally. It seems to me that, in a state with a law written as you quote it here, one could go down the list of all crimes and enhance most sentences under almost all of them by labeling something used in their commission that could be called a “criminal tool”, since subsection (A) of this OH code section covers implements not necessarily, or even usually, dedicated to crime, including as here, innocuous things like cameras. For example, couldn’t OH, in a case of written perjury, charge such criminal possession merely for the pen used in filling out and/or signing the document that is evidence of perjury?

  1. I have also never before heard the term ‘(gross) sexual imposition’, although, as I read in the code section quoted here, it covers both sex imposed by coercion, except in the case of that with a spouse, and also sex with a person of less than a certain age. I had to look up the OH rape statute, because you left out what comes after the colon in subsection (A). It appears to me that the gross sexual imposition section includes the rape section, except for a spouse, as victim, that resides elsewhere than at the residence of the offender. The two statutes also seem to imply that it’s OK to engage in sexual conduct with your cohabitating spouse after drugging same surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception. So maybe I don’t know English as she is spoken in OH. Can I conclude that, because OH is charging both of these statutes, this guy was involved in two incidents with the same girl, once when she was not his spouse and once when she was but was not living with him? :wink:

In any case, again, while the basic crime and nature of the charges are not basically ambiguous, as reported, out-of-staters (and maybe even OHers, if ‘gross sexual imposition’ has only recently been used in OH’s revised codes) ought to get a definition of “GSI”.

Interestingly, you include the text of laws charging 1) trespassing in a structure in order to commit rape/GSI and 2) removing of the intended victim to a different location in order to do same – although you don’t quote anything from the news article that says these charges were also filed. How do you know these charge were filed?

Apparently GSI is roughly equivalent to what CA calls simply ‘unlawful sex’. I think it’s an outrageous logical insult to include the word ‘unlawful’ in a statute, because that immediately makes the reasoning of the law unquestionably circular. But the State of CA is not much into logic and rationality, just hype PR. I once talked to some of the jokers who massage such wordings in Legislative Counsel’s office in Sacramento, in respect to a medical-records bill. They just don’t make much sense.

Rysdad:

I guess that would apply also to those who wish to filter out my posts. :wink:

Jodih:

One of those who responds to posts he doesn’t read. OK, whatever’s right.

It was, of course, others who quoted most of my earlier posts who made my more recent post so long, through my quoting their posts in turn.

Hey, you don’t think my posts are better

29

In some cases it does, and in some it doesn’t. I included only the first paragraph or two because one should assume (at least under the classic journalism “rules”) that the most important information will be contained there. The perjury story, for example, goes on to expound upon some specifics; while the rape/kidnapping fugitive story basically includes little else.

Correct.

If you lived here, you would be as amazed as I am that the PD assumes its readers are well-versed enough to even know the word; but in this case, they did indeed use the word from the statute itself. Plus, this has been a pretty big deal case in the papers the last few months, so many people are already familiar with the specifics. Distracts us from the real issues like handouts to the NFL and a corrupt mayor.

Yep, this occurred to me as well. Seems like breaking a butterfly on a wheel, that one does.

Probably true–on that basis, I concur with your statements in this thread.

Actually, I think because a GSI charge can be specifically brought simply and only if the victim is under 13, while the rape charge cannot, he is being charged with both.

The last sentence refers to some kidnapping and agg. burglary charges for which the fugitive is wanted, so I quoted those as well. I don’t know if they’re related to the rape/GSI charge or separate incidents.

I agree with you there–legislators often back themselves into a question-begging corner when writing these things.

“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy