Should there be a media blackout on naming the alleged Colorado killer?
Families of the Colorado shooting victims have called on the media to starve the killer of publicity by refusing to name him in their reports. But Elaine Sharp, a well-known British-born US lawyer who participated in the the Boston defence of Louise Woodward and the New York trial of Aafia Siddiqui, says a media blackout would only feed his notoriety.
Shooting suspect James Holmes
In the wake of the Aurora movie massacre, the families of the victims have decided not to utter the accused killer's name.
Colorado's governor and now President Obama have declined to mention the alleged killer's name. For now, and for the grieving families, the alleged killer is to be the "No Name Killer."
While the decison of the victims' families not to speak the name of James Holmes is one way to deny him the reward of infamy for his bloody shooting rampage during the midnight premier showing of "The Black Knight Rises," one wonders if it will actually serve as a deterrent to other would-be serial killers?
In other words, is denial of notoriety a shield against these crimes in the future? The No Name Killer could well become synonymous with other notorious killers (The Green River Killer, Jack the Ripper...).
But, wait: The No Name Killer must become notorious, right? We have a constitutional right to public trials, rooted in our desire never to repeat the Star Chamber (OK, Guantanamo excepted).
His name will go down in infamy because his trial probably will be televised. Will news channels actually boycott the use of his name? What about the public's right to know and the journalist's duty to chronicle history as it unfolds?
Isn't it the case that the decision of the families to never mention the No Name Killer's name is a way for them to have some control in the face of the chaos of senseless killings? It's really not rooted in a desire to try to stop serial killers in the future.
It is right that this is a time for the families to focus on their loved ones, but the justice system and the press must be transparent if they are to contribute to a functioning democracy. The papers must report and trials must be public. There can be no such case as "The People v The No Name Killer."
Anyway, he hasn't been convicted. He may be not guilty by reason of insanity. At the end of the day, if he is convicted, the families of the victims will have their say (called an "impact statement") about how this event not only killed their loved ones, but also how the No Name Killer's deeds victimised them, too.
For now, he's The No Name Killer, but inherent in our freedoms is a systemic guarantee that he will be known for who he is: James Holmes.
To call him, anything else, such as "Suspect A," just feeds into his notoriety. Think, Jack the Ripper, the Green River Killer......