 |
 |
Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 10:35 PM
Courts Record Confidentiality of Victims
By Pam Sullivan
If one wants to find who the victim is of sexual violence under age 18, it is not difficult – search Yahoo, or watch the 6:00 news. If the media missed it, Hamilton County court records are an easy source.
“The Grand Jurors of the County of Hamilton, in the name and by authority of the State of Ohio, upon their oaths do find and present that [accused] on or about the [mo/day/year] at the County of Hamilton and State of Ohio aforesaid, engaged in sexual conduct to wit: fellatio with [minor]…”
Wait! There’s more.
“The Grand Jurors of the County of Hamilton, in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio, upon their oaths do find and present that [accused] on [mo/day/year] at the County of Hamilton and State of Ohio aforesaid, a person who at the time was eighteen years of age or older, engaged in sexual conduct, to wit: without privilege to do so, inserted, however slight, any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal cavity of [minor]…”
The importance of the above text, which are excerpts from court records, lies not in the statements themselves or in the indictment; the importance lies in the accessibility of this record by anyone who desires to have it. The opportunity exists for anyone to obtain information, including the indictment, which states the name of the underage victim involved. All one has to do is search the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts web site with the name of the accused or the convict.
In other words, if one is a victim of a crime, including a horrendous sexual crime, and is under age 18, the clerk of courts sees no mandatory provision of confidentiality for the minor. Only if the victim requests confidentiality, will it be granted. It may seem like I am attacking the local courts, and in a sense I am. However, the article is more an attempt to advocate confidentiality, especially for victims of sexual crimes under the age of 18.
The State of Ohio developed a document for victims of sexual crimes. The victim must formally request confidentiality. This action occurs only if the victim or representative of the victim asks the court to block the disclosure to the public. There is no reference in this document for minors. There is no requirement for as adult, including a guardian ad litem or social worker, to approach the judge and request confidentiality. It is the victim’s responsibility to ensure confidentiality of records, whether the victim’s age is 40 or four.
Unlike Ohio, federal courts required privacy protection for minors. In March, 2004 the Judicial Conference, policy maker for the U.S. courts, also published new guidelines for the disclosure of criminal cases by electronic means such as the internet. It specifically stated that a minor’s name was to be excluded; only initials may be provided. The Judicial Conference also required the redacting or editing of previously scanned files to comply with this notice. This procedure applied to documents submitted by counsel and parties involved in cases as well as those developed by the clerk’s office. In addition to protection of minors, the publication of March 2004 included additional procedures regarding confidentiality.
The Judicial Conference guidelines also include criminal cases accessible by the general public to not include the first five digits of one’s Social Security number, financial information except the last four digits, one’s actual birth date (month and year are approved), and the street address. If the publication addresses protection of criminals, what was provided for lesser offenses such as moving violations. In September, I looked up one ticket and every piece of forbidden information regarding a criminal was on the site [for a moving violation].
Such regulations do not stop with the Judicial Conference, but emphasize a previous law. A federal law does restrict dissemination of Social Security numbers and this statute does apply to states. The Social Security Code, Section 450 ©(2)©(viii)(I) says:
“Social security account numbers and related records that are obtained or maintained by an authorized person pursuant to any provision of law, enacted on or after October 1, 1990, shall be confidential, and no authorized person shall disclose any such social security number.”
The lack of privacy should come as no shock. What we value most in a society is represented by the institutions that serve us. With Americans now have multiple land lines, mobile phones, multiple emails, Web sites, multiple voice mail, PDA’s, and with all the avenues to obtain and receive information, we are more concerned with devices that appear to make life easier than with life. The value of these [perceived] conveniences is becoming more important than the value of a person. No one has time to do research or to ensure rules are followed because the priority now is learning and implementing and using technology.
The amount of time needed to ensure confidentiality requires a great deal of review of each document. It puts additional strain on the already overloaded bureaucracy of the court system. The additional availability of information on the web, combined with an ever-increasing docket, additional laws for privacy, email, faxes, copying, upgrading, new computer programs, new forms, new this and new that have made a once simple process of filing a document into a highly complicated one that seems to never end. Additionally, the law now requires redacting of documents. This process alone would take endless hours of pouring through documents already scanned into the computer. However, the effort is necessary.
The courts are the protectors of the rights of the citizens of the United States. The courts are now unable to abide by higher law because time is limited. The courts are too busy processing information or learning new ways of processing information that there is not time to do protect our rights as citizens. Maybe court employees are too busy learning the new software systems or downloading the newest updates or fixing a jam in the copier to address the issue of confidentiality. They are, in essence, doing what almost everyone else in America is doing. Why should the court system be different from other businesses, families or individuals in America? One cannot blame Hamilton County Clerk of Courts or the State of Ohio. As individuals, we must blame ourselves.
Regarding the Grand Jury Indictment, calls were made to the clerks office, the state, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Civil Liberty Union. Such efforts resulted only in sympathy or a confirmation that the courts had a right to display the name of a minor victim. Maybe they were more concerned with learning their new voice mail or were waiting for a call from the help desk than a minor victim of a sex crime. Eventually, I turned to the internet for information. The ironic result was that all the information used in this article obtained from the internet. Of course, if the internet was not available, this issue of minor victim confidentiality would not have been an issue in the first place.
In thinking about my concern for the rights of a victim of a sexual act who is a minor, maybe I am the one with the problem. The name is on the Web site. Nothing is currently addressing this problem. Instead of taking the time to write and submit this article, maybe I should spend time with what is, perhaps, more important. Maybe I should spend my time figuring out why I cannot fax a document from my laptop or how to use all the features of voice mail instead. Maybe the point is that what I value is really not important after all.
Links
· Clerk of Courts
|
|
| |
|
|
|
