Talk:Dennis Dechaine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Why I added the NPOV tag
I should preface this by saying that I don't really have strong personal views on this case either way. However, this little article seems to be written entirely from a Deschaine suppporter's perspective, and mostly a plug for a book supporting his innocence. From my understanding of the case, there is plenty of circumstantial and physical evidence supporting Deschaine's guilt. [The victim]'s family, as well as several professional journalists, as well as the AG's office, seem to be adamantly convinced of his guilt. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no one has written a book from their side. This article needs a little more balance. JamesofMaine 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply and Fix
When I wrote the article, I did not want to mention the book as it would look like a plug, but it came with my sources, and admittedly is a source of information. The author is a former head of ATF for ME and NH, a person who would not be expected to side with a convict. I think it would be easier for most convicts to get a Governor's pardon, than to have a top law enforcement official speak out in their defense. I live near Philadelphia and have no connection with any of the parties involved.
The case is listed as a disputed conviction. I do not think it should be disputed further by labeling it NPOV. Rather, you should add unmentioned disputed information to the article. I have added your information to the article. I believe the article already mentioned what you regard as "plenty of circumstantial and physical evidence supporting Deschaine's guilt." Some of it seems too good to wholly believe, like Deschaine leaving documents bearing his name on the property where [the victim] was abducted. The main problem is Deschaine appears to have a solid alibi. I am not aware of any "balance" to that. I am somewhat opposed to stating that people are adamantly convinced of Deschaine's guilt without giving solid reasons, but I have done so anyway. --Danras 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pressure Groups
I removed "Deschaine's opponents say there is plenty of circumstantial and physical evidence supporting Deschaine's guilt. The Attorney General's office, [the victim]'s family, and several professional journalists seem to be adamantly convinced of his guilt."
The statement does not say whether this evidence is already given in the article or is allegedly unknown or secret evidence. I do not think the article should allude to secret evidence. The case is about facts, not about pressure groups. I realize the Trial and Error group supports Deschaine, but aside from facts they present, their numbers mean nothing. Perhaps if forensic technicians or close members of Deschaine's family were convinced of Deschaine's guilt, such conviction could be listed, preferably along with specific reasons. --Danras 11:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reason for Revert
Appeals courts do not function as juries. Their failure to overturn the conviction does not mean they believe Dechaine is guilty. If they overturned the conviction, it would not mean they believed he is innocent either. Moore's conclusion does not rest almost entirely on the medical examiner's estimate of time of death. The Trial and Error web site states, “as noted in Human Sacrifice, forensic pathology textbooks and/or other pathologists' opinions which hold that the outer limit under these circumstances was 36 hrs or less.” --Danras 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Victim's name
It is not necessary, and bad form, to name the victim. I've deleted it from the article and redacted it here. I do not know the policy on this and if I'm wrong, I'll take no offense at being reverted. But it can't possibly be right to name the victim here, can it?David in DC (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with that -- she was a minor and not a well-known enough name to say that it is "public". --Jkp212 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cite Wikipedia policy. If you guys want to start your own pedia feel free to do so.John celona (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP Policy states:" When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." I think this idea is relevant here and I've edited the article accordingly...--Jkp212 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with JkP. JC, if JkP's citation of policy does not persuade you, please do not re-revert. Instead, please seek other opinions besides JkP's and mine. Contact a friendly admin. Start an RfC. Continue the conversation here. Anything but re-reverting. That breaks the edit-war chain, and involves additional people, all of whom are as interested as any one of the 3 of us in making things right. (Please also note my phrase "the three of us". It really is about time to concede that we are 2 very different editors).David in DC (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the reason given is false, since the name has "been widely disseminated" in national media and a book. I have added half a dozen sources, including NY Times and Village Voice. I will revert one last time only to the ORIGINAL version (keep in mind the name was put there by another use-not me) If someone re-reverts it I will file something. We need to step back and see the forest. We are not going to rename the Tate-Labianca murders the "Benedict Canyon-Silver Lake murders" nor are we going to rename the Lindbergh Kidnapping the "Famed Aviator's Son Kidnapping". We don't do it for living victims-see Michael Jackson or Mike Tyson and we CERTAINLY don't do it for dead ones. John celona (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- An editor exercises discretion, which a very different thing from censorship. Discretion counsels that, even if every paper from the New York Times to the Weekly World News names the child victim of a crime, a Wikipedia editor must use his/her own discretion to decide if that name belongs here. Mine says it doesn't. JkP's says it doesn't. Yours says it does. Rather than re-revert, I asked you to seek additional counsel. That would be necessary to check your choice exercising discretion against the community's. Instead, you follow your own counsel only. It's a shame. David in DC (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the reason given is false, since the name has "been widely disseminated" in national media and a book. I have added half a dozen sources, including NY Times and Village Voice. I will revert one last time only to the ORIGINAL version (keep in mind the name was put there by another use-not me) If someone re-reverts it I will file something. We need to step back and see the forest. We are not going to rename the Tate-Labianca murders the "Benedict Canyon-Silver Lake murders" nor are we going to rename the Lindbergh Kidnapping the "Famed Aviator's Son Kidnapping". We don't do it for living victims-see Michael Jackson or Mike Tyson and we CERTAINLY don't do it for dead ones. John celona (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with JkP. JC, if JkP's citation of policy does not persuade you, please do not re-revert. Instead, please seek other opinions besides JkP's and mine. Contact a friendly admin. Start an RfC. Continue the conversation here. Anything but re-reverting. That breaks the edit-war chain, and involves additional people, all of whom are as interested as any one of the 3 of us in making things right. (Please also note my phrase "the three of us". It really is about time to concede that we are 2 very different editors).David in DC (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP Policy states:" When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." I think this idea is relevant here and I've edited the article accordingly...--Jkp212 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cite Wikipedia policy. If you guys want to start your own pedia feel free to do so.John celona (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that it's not widely disseminated in the sense that it is not a household name. We should respect the girl's dignity and privacy, even in death. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion intervention requested
An editor has requested a Third opinion on this issue. The issue seems to be well explained above. My first thoughts are (1) the name of the victim does little to further the information about the subject, and (2) there is no privacy issue since the victim is dead, and the name has been used extensively in the press, even to the point where her picture is featured in an article. I'm inclined to think that we should default to the examples of other tertiary sources. Can anyone cite some precedents at other tertiary sources or how it has been handled here at WP for a deceased victim? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Similar pages that do not disclose vicims' names: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6](this mentions victims names), [7], [8] [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
- Similar pages that do disclose victims' names: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] moved here since it mentions victims names, [26], [27], .
- All these were harvested from the Convicted American Child Molester's category. South Park Mexican appears on both lists because a victim who sued him for paternity is identified but the rest of his victims are not. David in DC (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- David, what was your selection criteria from the list? Random or does this represent the whole list? It seems that if your selection process was unbiased we seem to have a good precedent for community preference at WP. Is this case more like the includes or excludes? Is there a common rationale in either? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- David it looks like you did cite the entire list, so there could be no bias in your selection criteria; however, the majority of the cases are not murders so BLP indirectly applies to the victims. It looks less clear cut as far as a clear precedent for how we handle this at WP. Any other ideas? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- David, what was your selection criteria from the list? Random or does this represent the whole list? It seems that if your selection process was unbiased we seem to have a good precedent for community preference at WP. Is this case more like the includes or excludes? Is there a common rationale in either? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've left a message for John to join us. I'd like to see some rationale as to why inclusion of the victims name improves the article at WP. Frankly the practice at WP is not crystal clear and I would be swayed by weighing what is best for our readers against the harm to the family of the girl. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The ostensible Wikipedia policy rationale for censoring the name of Sarah Cherry (which has been on the article since inception and was not put there by me) is that the name "was not widely disseminated". I addded a half dozen sources to the article, including the NY Times, Village Voice and a best selling book. I think it is safe to say this qualifies as "widepread dissemination". John celona (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can't dispute this point, but is this a compelling reason to return the name of the victim to the article? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- John, how is our readership better served by including the name of the victim? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Being an encyclopedia the value of providing accurate information is self-proving. Otherwise, why have a Wikipedia? Further, it is not a question of "adding" the name, it was put on by other users long ago. It is a question of censoring it-the burden should be on the proponents of censorship. Lastly, I would respectfully point out that if the user accounts above are determined to implement a policy censoring murder victims names they don't use an obscure article like this but go to a well-followed one like Charles Manson, Lindbergh, OJ, Robert Blake, etc. It is not done because anyone advocating such a step would be appropriately chased off the article. John celona (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please discontinue your erroneous use of the word "censor" when describing editorial decisions that are based on discretion. Not every piece of information (however well sourced) belongs. That is where discretion comes in, and its ok to have a discussion about it, but not to claim "censorship"... --Jkp212 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Being an encyclopedia the value of providing accurate information is self-proving. Otherwise, why have a Wikipedia? Further, it is not a question of "adding" the name, it was put on by other users long ago. It is a question of censoring it-the burden should be on the proponents of censorship. Lastly, I would respectfully point out that if the user accounts above are determined to implement a policy censoring murder victims names they don't use an obscure article like this but go to a well-followed one like Charles Manson, Lindbergh, OJ, Robert Blake, etc. It is not done because anyone advocating such a step would be appropriately chased off the article. John celona (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- David, who is harmed and how by inclusion of a name of a dead person which is already widespread in the media? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Primarily the poor victim's memory. Additionally, and almost important, the victim's surviving relatives. To a lesser degree, because speculative, future victims and their families, if this remains the "default option". Also, it seems quite paradoxical to me that this child's name would be protected if her attacker had simply raped her and severely wounded her, but because he killed her, her name becomes fair game. She's not protected by BLP because she's not living, but the values embedded in the BLP policy apply equally to this victim.
-
- I too am dismayed by the notion that ongoing editorial discretion = censorship. WP is a living resource, continually being edited, refined, and, we hope, improved. To describe this process as censorship is not really fair. And who put the information in first is entirely irrelevant. David in DC (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion given
This is not clear cut by any means. I took the liberty of posting this issue at the Village pump (policy) page without mentioning this article to avoid bringing disruption here; there are some good but varied ideas there. Personally, I feel that the article functions just fine without naming the victim, but if a significant number of our readers feel that the information is pertinent to their research then we should default to that direction in the absense of compelling reasons to protect the privacy of the family. Since the cat is out of the bag in a big way (victim name in national media), why try to seal the bag post exit? I don't think that further dispute resolution will be productive, because each of the editors involved is right with good reason, and WP does not have any specific written guidance on the matter. Perhaps an RfC might bring more ideas. I would not oppose special provisions being adopted so that we develop a standard that reflects community consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Kevin. Your third opinion here and your post to the village pump were both valuable reality-checks. David in DC (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Other comments
- Let me jump in here. To answer what/whom is being harmed: the girl's privacy (which as a non-public person she is still entitled to, even in death), and the privacy/dignity of her non-public family. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I would suggest you try that on a well populated article like OJ, Robert Blake, Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, etc. so that you can get a better idea of what the community thinkis of removing widely disseminated victim's names from articles. John celona (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That seems a bizzarely disruptive way to "..get a better idea of what the community thinkis [sic]...." A better approach was to ask for a third opinion and still better was the third opinion-giver's posting to the village pump. Both techniques yielded results that bolster your position. Not as much drama. No call for posting in all caps. No bitter denunciations. But useful, indeed preferable, nonetheless. David in DC (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Given the Village pump results [[28]], more than one editor using the words censor or censorship I might add, I am restoring the victim's name-which has been on the article since inception. John celona (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That seems a bizzarely disruptive way to "..get a better idea of what the community thinkis [sic]...." A better approach was to ask for a third opinion and still better was the third opinion-giver's posting to the village pump. Both techniques yielded results that bolster your position. Not as much drama. No call for posting in all caps. No bitter denunciations. But useful, indeed preferable, nonetheless. David in DC (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I would suggest you try that on a well populated article like OJ, Robert Blake, Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, etc. so that you can get a better idea of what the community thinkis of removing widely disseminated victim's names from articles. John celona (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More Commentary on Victims and Publicly Identifying Them
Sarah Cherry is a public person as is her family. Taxpayers are spending perhaps a million dollars or more to incarcerate her alleged victimizer (who was convicted in opposition to established medical science). The taxpaying public have a right to know who they helping. If some crime victims do not want their name known, they or their families do not have to report the crimes. Withholding a victim's name is dishonest. Criminals are supposed to wear masks, not the victims. --Danras (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- And then there's a reality check of a different sort. As I understand this last comment, if this 12-year-old didn't want to be a public figure she shouldn't have gone off and gotten kidnapped, raped, sexually tortured, and murdered. Hmmm. I'll have to try to wrap my head around that. On second thought, I don't think I'll bother. David in DC (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think some writers here have an ego problem, not Sarah Cherry. For all I know Cherry's family and others who knew her have no problem with her name being reported. I don't think Megan Kanka's mom wants to rename Megan's Law. I fail to see why reporting one's name is so deeply embarrassing. Victims who are too embarrassed to make their names public and acknowledge "somebody wronged me," don't deserve help. They are such losers that everyone can screw them without fear that these losers will report being wronged. --Danras (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is the most ridiculous piece of garbage rhetoric. Every victim reacts differently, and those that prefer not to be public figures do not deserve to be labeled "losers"...--Jkp212 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Victims are only "losers" in private if they want to go public with their victimization, but cannot because of their own egotism. Publicly such victims are winners. If victims do not want to make their names known, they must not have been victimized very much. If someone swindles a victim out of his life savings, but the victim does not consider the crime serious enough to make his name public, then we should accept his evaluation and not trouble ourselves about the alleged crime. If we listened to victims' own evaluations, the issue of hiding their names would not arise. --Danras (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- What on Earth does this line of discussion have to do with improving the article? We're not here to decide who "deserves" help or call anyone a "loser," and I fail to see how soapboxing of that nature is in keeping with the principles of this site. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Luna. David in DC (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- What on Earth does this line of discussion have to do with improving the article? We're not here to decide who "deserves" help or call anyone a "loser," and I fail to see how soapboxing of that nature is in keeping with the principles of this site. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Victims are only "losers" in private if they want to go public with their victimization, but cannot because of their own egotism. Publicly such victims are winners. If victims do not want to make their names known, they must not have been victimized very much. If someone swindles a victim out of his life savings, but the victim does not consider the crime serious enough to make his name public, then we should accept his evaluation and not trouble ourselves about the alleged crime. If we listened to victims' own evaluations, the issue of hiding their names would not arise. --Danras (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is the most ridiculous piece of garbage rhetoric. Every victim reacts differently, and those that prefer not to be public figures do not deserve to be labeled "losers"...--Jkp212 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think some writers here have an ego problem, not Sarah Cherry. For all I know Cherry's family and others who knew her have no problem with her name being reported. I don't think Megan Kanka's mom wants to rename Megan's Law. I fail to see why reporting one's name is so deeply embarrassing. Victims who are too embarrassed to make their names public and acknowledge "somebody wronged me," don't deserve help. They are such losers that everyone can screw them without fear that these losers will report being wronged. --Danras (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
