CONTENTS
Abstract 3
Discussion 3
What the Advocates of Privacy Say 4
What the Advocates of Public Possession Say 5
Conclusions 6
References 8
Abstract
Autopsy is one of the most sensitive issues in the today’s law enforcement agenda. Thus, despite the fact that the foundations of the rights to privacy of a victim and the relatives are strongly protected in the United States of America, several recent reports found that post-mortem autopsy photos is a powerful solution for refuting wrongful official conclusions. In other words, while the proponents of a public disclosure system are vigorously advocating the idea that the ‘public right to know’, as well as the interests of justice should always override any individual rights of the deceased and their families, the opponents are no less vibrant in claiming that privacy is above everything.
In many states across the country, a number of statutes were passed to regulate this issue. In harmony with the todays intensified human rights movement, these statutes made public examinations of the autopsy results unlawful. Yet, the practice is stringently explicit in this regard – autopsy photos are often a powerful defensive, as well as a prosecutorial method of data collection, which can be used in the controversial cases. Because written examinations of the bodies are usually subject to strong personal biases and individual perceptions of the examiner, it is only the photos, which can help other stakeholders of a process to get insights into the problem (Palmiotto, 2001).
This research evaluates the debate regarding a popular idea that autopsy photos should be always made public. In particular, it examines arguments of the both sides, and concludes that while a ‘public knowledge’ exception should exist, serious limitations and restrictions of this right should counterbalance the potential of encroaching upon the victims’ and their families’ legitimate interests.
Discussion
After the tragic death of Dale Earnhardt in 2001, one of the Volusia County medical examiners made an autopsy of his body. The autopsy photos were made public, which infuriated family of the deceased, who decided to start a legal action against the authorities, who were investigating the matter. As a result of the dispute, the Earhnardt Family Protection Act, heavily supported by Congressman Jim King, was passed. The main purpose of this act was to exempt all types of autopsy photos and videos from public domain, unless an express consent from the applicable next kin was received by the authorities (Seddon & Pass, 2009).
Yet, a group of politicians and academics vigorously opposed the bill. In particular, it is argued that the right of public exception may prevent potential abuses of the law, mistrial and prosecutorial overzealousness in future. The debate sparked across all jurisdictions of the United States.
What the Advocates of Privacy Say
The proponents of the privacy rights supremacy over the right of public examination are actively contesting the principle that anyone and at any time may get access to the photo and video results of autopsy. Their main argument in this regard is that the families, friends, and, under the orthodox interpretation, the deceased himself, may suffer irreparable emotional harm from such actions. In particular, it is suggested that when the victim’s friends and relatives will see other people watching at the body of their ones beloved one such a state, their mental torments anxieties may surpass all reasonable limits. In several similar cases, the victims’ families had to seek psychological counselling when the photographic reports about their beloved ones began circulating in the media. In the extreme situations, the family members experienced the symptoms of aggravated heart attacks and other physical distress, caused by strong nervous upheavals.
In addition, the United States of America is a country, where the freedom of religious pluralism is one of the tenets of statehood. There is a strict prohibition in some religions to display the bodies of dead to the general public, because thus their souls risk not being able to reach atonement. This argument is becoming more and more persuasive today, with many people converting to unusual religions, or interpreting Abrahamic religious frameworks in an untraditional way.
It is also important to remember that the digital revolution made it possible to distribute a photo or video of the autopsy results in a flash, and hundreds of thousands will see that. This situation may cause immeasurable pain to relatives of the deceased, especially due to the fact that some remarks regarding the comments about the deceased may be offensive or expletive. What is more important is that the creation of Facebook, Google+ and other popular social media networks made it impossible to secure a court injunction, which can be used to protect one’s privacy. Even when such an injunction is secured, removing all photos from the global web will be a task of sheer technological impossibility.
What the Advocates of Public Possession Say
Despite the fact that privacy rights are one of the most fundamental in the system of American values, a possibility of investigating a criminal case, identifying those, who are guilty, and bringing them to liability is no less important societal goal. Moises DeLao case is one of the most illustrative evidences in this regard. Arrested for appearing intoxicated on public, DeLao was waiting his bail to be issued by the judge. The authorities found him hanging by wire in his prison cell, and published an official report, which said that he had committed a suicide. Yet, his family was not satisfied with the results of official investigation. A private attorney was hired and investigated the matter, finding out that the deceased had been severely beaten before death. Thus, the results of that investigation suggested that he was forced to commit a suicide (Karagiozis & Sgalio, 2005).
Another case is 1992 robbery arrest of Donald Fleming, who died while he was under arrest. Before the trial was scheduled, a suspect died. Examination made by the local police forensic expert showed that the main reason of his death was a hear stroke, which, in its turn, was exacerbated by cocaine abuse of the deceased. However, when the autopsy photos were examined by his family and their attorney, it became evident that Fleming was badly beaten before his death. No one contested that heatstroke was the reason of his death. However, most probably it was caused not by his drug addiction, but by violent actions of the prison guards.
In addition, the opponents of nationwide application of Earnhardt standard are arguing that the adoption of this standard is not consistent with the First Amendment rights. Accordingly, Thomas Julin from the University of Florida argues that the adoption of this standard ‘turned the First Amendment into a nuclear warhead’, which can extirpate the rights is expected to defend. Thus, in his view, the courts should not regulate what should and what should not enter public domain (Coble, 2011).
Furthermore, the supporters of openness in this context are actively affirming that regulating this issue by means of judicial discretion infringes the rights of media outlets. For many of them publication of information, however controversial it may be is a matter of business survival. The news market is at the peak of competition intensity. By restricting the right of publicize autopsy materials, which are generally consistent with the communal values, the state can leave many breadwinners jobless.
It is, therefore, obvious that public examination of the autopsy results may sometimes help to prevent egregious abuses of the law enforcement. Collusions between forensic experts and members of the investigative squads become popular today (Palmiotto, 2001).
Conclusions
Having summarized the main findings of this essay, several conclusions should be made. Firstly, there is a strong division in the academic world regarding the possibility of making photos of the deceased public. Secondly, while the arguments of the privacy protectors are considerably persuasive, the practice shows that in some cases it is the only way to prevent police abuses.
References
Coble, D. (2011). “Autopsy photos became cause of controversy”. The August Chronicle. Web. Retrieved from http://chronicle.augusta.com/sports/nascar/2011-02-11/autopsy-photos-became-cause-controversy
Karagiozis, M. & Sgaglio, R. (2005). Forensic investigation handbook : an introduction to the collection, preservation, analysis, and presentation of evidence. Springfield, Ill: Charles C Thomas.
Palmiotto, M. (2001). Police misconduct : a reader for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Seddon, A. & Pass, A. (2009). Forensic science. Pasadena, Calif: Salem Press.
