NEWS > 24 November 2005

Article sourced from

Nation Multimedia - Bangkok, T
24 November 2005

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

EDITORIAL: Innocent until prov

Simple but often-forgotten principle gets a lift from new ban on the parading of suspects before the media. P rogress in reforming Thailand�s criminal justice system is usually made in small increments.

But the new regulation issued by the Royal Thai Police last week to ban the long-standing practice by law enforcement officials to parade criminal suspects and their victims in front of cameras represented a major step forward in the effort to better protect citizens� rights and human dignity. The move was long overdue. Article 26 of the Constitution says that all state authorities, in exercising their powers, should pay regard to human dignity, rights and liberties in accordance with other provisions of the Constitution. Article 33 says the accused in a criminal case shall be presumed innocent. Before a person is convicted of having committed an offence, such a person shall not be treated as a convict.

Specifically, the new regulation prohibits police from bringing victims or suspects to a press conference or letting reporters or photographers take pictures of them inside or outside a police station. Police officers who fail to observe this new rule will face disciplinary action, according to national police chief Pol General Kowit Wattana.

The regulation also redefines the relationship between police officers and crime-beat reporters and cameramen, which in many cases is incompatible with their respective standards of professionalism. Publicity-seeking police officers or law enforcement officials have allowed journalists and cameramen access to take pictures of criminal suspects and their victims because they expect newspapers to publish pictures and television news programmes to air footage.

Images of law enforcement officials standing over cowering suspects and frightened victims that got into print or were broadcast on television were supposed to enhance their reputation and show their �achievements� as crime-busters. Crime-beat reporters and cameramen expect police officers to return favour by letting them in on lurid details on how crimes are committed, or by leaking confidential investigators� findings so that crime news can be sensationalised.

This sort of relationship tends to compromise the professional integrity of journalists, who are supposed to maintain objectivity in their reporting, and of law enforcement officials, who are supposed to protect the rights of criminal suspects and the dignity of victims.

Under the new rules, police are also told to give statements on criminal cases, including circumstances surrounding the crimes, progress made in the investigation and identities of adult suspects and victims - but not in cases where suspects or victims are minors - to the media. This will bring police practices in line with the Constitution, and has other, more practical benefits.

For example, parading witnesses and victims before press conferences had been a matter for concern because many media outlets could not be relied on to treat those images with sensitivity or decency. All too often victims of serious crimes, such as rapes, had to cover their faces with ski masks or newspapers while being displayed before a crowd of reporters and cameramen. Criminal suspects who were brought by police to enact their alleged crimes were sometimes beaten by a lynch mob. Some police officers even went so far to tell the media at press conferences on behalf of the suspects that the suspects had already confessed to their alleged crimes during initial interrogations.

Such practices are in flagrant violation of the rights of criminal suspects, and utterly fail to protect the dignity of crime victims.

It is thus very disappointing to hear that the Crime Photographers Association of Thailand complained to the police in a letter that they objected to the new regulation because it made it inconvenient for them to do their job. The crime-beat cameramen claim that the new rules prevent them from fairly and completely reporting on crimes, which they claim require pictures and footages of suspects and victims to make them interesting. On the contrary, with the new rules in place, they are now in the position to present more balanced crime news.

In making such inane and indefensible argument, these photographers were only confirming the need to have this new regulation in the first place. It only confirmed that society cannot rely on these people to handle their subjects with sensitivity and decency. The same can be said of their editors. Journalists have to conform to a certain standard of behaviour and professional ethics. This includes respecting the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Nation Multimedia - Bangkok, T24 November 2005

EDITORIAL: Innocent until prov

EiP Comments:

Nation Multimedia - Bangkok, T
24 November 2005