Policy Corner: When we name crime victims

We are all curious, which is one reason we read newspapers.

I'm sure you've had occasion to read a news story and wanted more detail than the writer offered. Sometimes that is the failing of the reporter to answer all of the questions on your mind. Sometimes the reporter does not have all of the information or can't get it on the record. Sometimes there is no way to find out.

But sometimes we don't give you all of the details for reasons of good taste, for the sake of the privacy of the people involved or to avoid collateral damage.

As a 19-year-old, I was interviewed by a Daily Herald reporter after I was robbed at gunpoint. I agreed to be interviewed and named.

Had I not agreed to that, the paper would not have used my name because it could put me at risk of reprisal by my robbers.

We avoid providing the identity of victims of sex crimes - by name or relationship.

In high-profile major crime cases, such as murders and kidnappings, and in cases involving a prominent person, we might name the victim. It boils down to a judgment call on whether it is important to do so.

When someone is murdered or killed in an accident, we will tell you who it was by name and hometown, but we won't give you an exact street address. You might want to know, but so do burglars and other criminals who might seek to compound the damage.

We might, however, give an address in the event the person's home also was burned down.

With people who are charged in crimes, we will provide a name but not an exact address. We don't want to invite vigilantism.

All of these policies are geared to limit the collateral damage of crimes to either the victims or their families and in some cases to those who've been charged.