To the Editor:
At the town meeting last week, I was lucky enough to get to know some of my neighbors better. Hearing them speak on current issues, and exchanging ideas in the wake of successful direct democracy, I was happy to gather a few phone numbers and make some new friends. But when, out of curiosity, I entered a name into Google, I found something disheartening.
My neighbor doesn’t have a lot of internet results, or a strong internet footprint. Unfortunately for him, one of the only things that shows up about him on the internet is a decade-old arrest, preserved in The MV Times’ “Court Report.” To be clear, he was then — and remains — legally innocent. He was accused of something, and the charges were dismissed entirely.
As a defense attorney, I understand what may have happened — prosecutors and police routinely overcharge people with something frightening or stigmatizing in order to gain leverage during the plea process, but if they don’t have the evidence, will ultimately have to drop the case or lose at trial. But what if I were an employer considering hiring my neighbor? What if I were just an ordinary person with no connection to the court system, who found this search result sufficient grounds to no longer associate with my neighbor?
As someone who writes about the criminal court system, I’m deeply appreciative of the paper’s commitment to shining sunlight into the depths of the courthouse. But do we need to attach names to every charge, while the accused is still legally innocent? Creating search results that may follow them long after their name should have been cleared? I would encourage the paper to consider ways to cover what types of crime are being reported on the Island, which categories of cases are being prioritized in court, and of course notable convictions or high-profile legal matters. But maybe it’s time to step back from stigmatizing the accused with blanket coverage of mirror accusations that names names and may cause lifelong consequences.
Emily Galvin Almanza, Esq.
Vineyard Haven