"Well, we're a little concerned for someone's welfare," your local newscaster might say. "There was an incident, and some people were detained to ensure safety."
If you heard that, what would you suppose that meant?
Police in New South Wales (a state in Australia) are not releasing photographs of "incidents" or are downplaying events so that the general public can feel safer. Don't you like feeling safe? That's a nice feeling. We wouldn't want things like "murder, rape and armed robbery" happening nearby to spoil that ambience. So, the newspeople will just read "incident," and you'll just feel so much better, now, won't you?
I have to state that it bothers me greatly to see autopsy images and/or film of violent crime scenes in the news in sensational stories. (Click here for gruesome photo!) When a crime happened six months ago, please do tell me that the victim was bludgeoned on the head. Do I need to see a picture? No, thanks. I would like the family to have that bit of privacy on the victim's last day here on earth.
Certainly the court DOES need to see these things, and my apologies to the family. Certainly in fairness to the general public, we need to hear that some poor woman was struck dead while she was hanging laundry in the backyard, or whatever. Does the government need to get involved in who may speak of these things? Perhaps there is a perceived need for this because some media folks can't practice self-censorship.
Or the tourism/ real estate business might suffer. Wouldn't it be *interesting* if the people in the neighbouring houses could sue an offender after a crime took place because it decreased their property values? An interesting concept, though criminals have a peculiar knack for having zero money while in custody and bunches later on with book deals and movies.