This is thanks to our esteemed GabbyD, who, in lieu of acrimonious debate in a recent thread, asks for authoritative research to answer the question of what to call Daniel Smith now that he has been found guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt by Makati Regional Trial Court. If not the legally incorrect and journalistically unethical term -“convicted rapist” – then what? Well here is something interesting I found: the En Banc Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Leo Echegaray who was found by the RTC to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of raping his daughter in 1994, a verdict later affirmed by the CA, and finally by SCORP leading to execution of Mr. Echegaray, the first and only under the 1987 Constitution. You don’t even need to read the body of this historic SCORP Decision to get the answer to the question we just debated, just the Title of it:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.
The term ACCUSED-APPELLANT appears in this SCORP decision 44 times in all.
Quod erap demonstradum?
I therefore repeat my accusation that there is a serious ongoing violation of Rule VIII of the Journalists Code of Ethics by a large swathe of the Mass Media in continuing to denigrate Mr. Smith through the gratuitous use of the epithet, “convicted rapist.”
VIII. I shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise. I shall exercise caution in publishing names of minors and women involved in criminal cases so that they may not unjustly lose their standing in society.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Ding,
You can participate in the discussion too if you have something to say. I don’t think Bencard and I are being disagreeable.
This is a matter of personal privilege as a blogger.
It is a matter of ethics in our use of words.
This is what blogging was invented for. All the rest of it is just sport spectating and diddling with the word processor.
It’s when words that become headlines that become memes when bloggers must weigh in, must say what they really mean.
Without this kind of mano a mano as you call it, blogging would be meaningless “hobby journalism” wouldn’t it?
Besides, lookit, I’ll send you a mobile photo of my blood pressure right now. It’s 99/55 and I am going for my 2 hour constitutional ride in ten minutes. See ya at mid morning.
But leave me something to chew on, will ya, Manoy Ding?
Better make it good: I have you by the tail, you unethical, unethical beast you.
a tandem bike has a steering wheel? haven’t heard that one before. anyway, i won’t take djb as a passenger – not at any price.
Manong Dean
Nah, we’re done, aren’t we?
Remember you agreed to my compromise tag of calling Smith ‘Daniel, The Rapist?
Remember I had ‘conceded’? :)
Ask anyone what their top of mind reply is if you mention the name Lance Corporal Daniel Smith.
Yes, Atty. Ben.
The lead rider takes the front seat, then the pair pedal in unison. :)
@Ding
so, there is a style book at use in any given MSM outfit right?
how are these entries/definitions determined? would you say that if the legal authorities said the proper term is, “X”, that the journalists ought to use the word “X” also?
BTW DJB,
On my side I do not see it as an ethical question.
Devoid of legal gobbledygook this matter with Daniel being under house arrest in the care of his government is one of justice for the rape victim, a Filipina, in case you’ve forgotten, Manoy, the elder, :)
Gab,
I am sourcing one. Abangan po.
Ding,
Not an ethical question?
Then what do you understand by Rule VIII: “I shall presume the accused to be innocent…”
Yun na nga ang sinasabi ni JAG na “semantics” lang daw.
Excuse me. Legal gobbledygook? That is what you think of the Constitution and the Code of Ethics?
Bencard,
On a bike, single or tandem, the front wheel is the “steering wheel” since that is the wheel that controls the direction of motion.
On a car, the driver’s steering “wheel” is not really a wheel in the same sense as the four wheels. In some racing cars the steering mechanism is not even round, but looks more like the handlebars of a bike.
But of course I would let Bencard drive the steering wheel on a tandem with me in the back as passenger. As long as we are on a mountain ridge and any mistake means certain death for BOTH OF US if he makes a mistake.
He has too much amor propio to die himself just to kill me!
[Sniff, sniff, from exasperation]
Semantics:
One apt for journalism, or mass communication (mass communication being that it defers to a common language that transcends specialist barriers; obviously you’re not writing or reading Justice Quarterly): Obvious ba, when journalists refer to Smith as a “convicted rapist”, they always qualify it that he was convicted by virtue of a decision of a decision by the RTC. And that his case is on appeal. What’s so unethical about it?
Accused or appellant — sinong Juan or Juana wants to read this terminology (legal-speak) when the above terminology clearly does the job, as long as it is qualified with important fact/s that follows it?
Just because all the judicial literature you consulted used “accused or appellant”, journalists can no longer used “convicted rapist” as a term to describe Smith.
Why did I say “niggling” — because this is so little an issue to build a case that journalists are being unethical with how they do their job.
To call someone a convicted rapist is a call to kill him? Now, that’s soooooo much of a stretch.
And I’d say, you’re the one who has wild imagination that a lynch mob is out to get Smith. There is no such lynch mob. Look around and sharpen your senses and see beyond the smokescreen. Don’t let Gabriela haunt you dreams. They’ve always been there, Smith or no Smith. Get over it.
Madonna,
Glad to see you are a good sport. But lookit, the only “convicted rapist” since 1987 was executed soon after he officially became that. No need to subscribe to Justice Quarterly to understand what that means. In the US they just killed Senor Medellin the convicted rapist of two teenage girls in LA.
Hmmm…it’s plain language: a convicted rapist deserves to die. Either now or later on in old age in jail.
The Lynch Mob is right here amongst us Madonna.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090309-193140/Smith-doing-clerical-work-at-US-Embassy
haha, i am enjoying the banter.
ding, it would still be dangerous to have djb as a passenger on a tandem bike. he could make it topple over an embankment, after jumping off safely.
Atty. Ben,
You’re quite a rascal huh? :)
But to loop this off on my side, IU really wish SCORP, nay the high courts (CA included) resolve Smith’s case soon and along with it the challenges to the VFA.
In fact on the long term, an honest review of the ‘mother’ of all treaties, the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty between the two allies should be held to sort out perceived or actual unequal provisis.
Ding,
Yes they should finish the judicial proceedings that appear plainly in the VFA in Smith’s case. Then you and I won’t fight.
But you also want the Judiciary to settle a Political Question that the Filipino People answered a long, long time ago and to which the answer would not change. That is not forthcoming because SCORP has already twice ruled VFA constitutional. And MDT, do not forget, was ratified by both Senates. It is the Mother of all executive agreements like the VFA. The 1987 did not abrogate that treaty.
You can’t do this through Scorp. You have to elect Hugo Chavez.
Hugo Chavez?
Now that’s a poser.
By this you mean a rabid anti-American?
Although, of course, I don’t know if his views have mellowed given that George W. is no loner there.
But has Hugo unclenched his fist?
I guess not.
No I just mean that it is a political question and the answer can only be changed by an election in which the newly elected policy makers decide it is time to abrogate the Mutual Defense Treaty. Ideally they should run on a platform in which that is one of the planks.