In a society where individual rights often clash with collective wellbeing, the arguments regarding privacy rights have become a battlefield.
How much privacy does an individual have a right to and at what point does it infringe on the rights of society? Who should be in a position to make such a judgment call? What guarantees you those rights? Being a citizen? A good person? Or are you automatically afforded those rights just by being a human being? The debate is ongoing and has left many casualties in its wake.
The latest skirmish involved a convicted murder by the name of Conrad Slippery. He had escaped from a minimum-security healing lodge sometime on July 11, but was caught by the next day (he had just been transferred there for “good behaviour”). While searching for him, the police weren’t allowed to tell the public about his criminal charges because it would’ve breached the Privacy Act. In other words, although the public knew that an escaped convict was on the loose, they had no idea it was a man who was supposed to be serving a life sentence for second-degree murder.
You can’t blame the RCMP. They were doing their job and the only way they could have disclosed that information was if there was an “immediate risk” to the public. They have to walk a fine line or they could be the ones in hot water. On the other hand, who’s to say what constitutes an “immediate risk”? Slippery could’ve used his escape to settle any old scores that were overdue. Knowing he was being hunted, anyone in the nearby vicinity could’ve become a hostage or at worst, a victim. Of course, this is all just speculation.
The question comes down to whether or not certain criminals should give up their right to privacy once they’re convicted. At that point, should the safety of the public take precedence over their right to privacy even if the risk in the situation is only speculative?
If it comes down to a matter of opinion, then yes, there’s a good chance that most will believe that privacy becomes a luxury murderers can’t afford. When they make the conscious decision to commit a crime that severe and the court thinks they should be held accountable, then they should give up their right to privacy as well as their right to freedom.
Obviously, this sort of thing would depend on the situation and the crime committed. Should an escaped thief be treated the same as an escaped murderer? Perhaps not, since it’s unlikely a thief is about to kill someone any time soon. But what about a thief with a criminal record of attempted murder? Once you start getting into situations with variables like that, the line becomes less clear. However, that doesn’t mean the possibility doesn’t require further scrutiny.
Sure, the police do have the option of publicizing an escapee’s criminal past if he or she poses an immediate threat, but there’s no reason why that law shouldn’t be expanded a bit. If a murderer escapes prison, he or she foregoes the right to privacy, end of story. Why are we cutting them slack when they committed the crime in the first place and then committing another crime by choosing to run away (i.e., escape prison)?
It’s true that some consideration needs to be given to their wellbeing as well. Just because they’ve been justly convicted once doesn’t mean that it should open the door to a lifetime of persecution. If the police start publicizing a convict’s criminal history, that individual will forever have to bear that taint of public scrutiny even after serving time. Even a convict that has attempted to escape prison deserves a chance at rehabilitation once he or she has completed his or her sentence. If their criminal past is publicized, their chances of rehabilitation within a community will be diminished.
In the end, a careful balance must always be struck between rights of the individual versus rights of society. When the safety of the community is in jeopardy because of lack of information, then even privacy rights require further discussion. In a situation such as Slippery’s escape, he will be serving a life sentence. There’s little chance that publicizing his criminal record would’ve impaired his rehabilitation since it’s unlikely anyone will remember by the time he legally gets out. That said, the answer should be obvious: privacy rights VETOED.
