34 of the nicest men in the metro area, NOT...

[BBatesokc]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the media publishing the employment information - only because its hard to see the 'newsworthiness' of it. Other than that, its not top secret info. is pretty readily available and the person being arrested should have been smart enough not to have given their employment information to the cops - there is no law saying you have to that I'm aware of and the lawyers I work with usually tell their clients not to divulge such info when being arrested for ANY crime.

Also, I find most people overreact on this sort of topic. The idea this somehow routinely and exorbitantly punishes the employer is not the reality in most cases. People are not going to stop patronizing a particular business in measurable numbers simply because an employee was arrested for public lewdness.

[BBatesokc]

I feel the same way about most of your comments, so clearly we are at different ends of some spectrum.

Really 'most' - Does your drama know no bounds? Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm thankful for that 'fact.'

[mkjeeves]

Part of what sticks in my craw about this is the fox site linked at the top and again below this post devoted more than half the space for the story on the first page to highlight who the employers were. They didn't give height, weight, home address, time/date of arrest, arresting officer, or any other specific details that one might obtain if they really want to be informed of facts. They did give the most irrelevant fact related to the men, (not even related to the crime), for the reasons I stated.

34 men arrested for sexual acts at Lake Hefner park

[Bill Robertson]

I don't know what they can do about the problem except to clear out some tree and bushes and/or make it a more appealing place for families to come to by putting in playground equipment, grills and stuff, but then maybe the offenders would only move on to a different, less developed part of the lake.

Actually, this was a problem on the east side of lake Hefner many years ago. The city cleared out the east side of the lake and installed the playground off Britton, the area for wind-surfers, etc. and the East Wharf. This was done against the will of many users that wanted the area left "natural". I was involved with the Oklahoma Bicycle Society at the time and attended many OKC Govt. meetings concerning lake Hefner planning. The area around Hobie Point was left "natural" due to a ton of protests from the area users complaining about the "scalping" of the east side of lake Hefner. In my opinion, the south side of Hefner needs to be "scalped" just like the East side. Yes, it will derail efforts to keep the lake area natural. But what is more important? Keeping the area natural or keeping the area safe?

[BBatesokc]

Part of what sticks in my craw about this is the fox site linked at the top and again below this post devoted more than half the space for the story on the first page to highlight who the employers were. They didn't give height, weight, home address, time/date of arrest, arresting officer, or any other specific details that one might obtain if they really want to be informed of facts. They did give the most irrelevant fact related to the crime, for the reasons I stated.

34 men arrested for sexual acts at Lake Hefner park

I would agree that it would make more sense for the media to post a rough idea of the person's address over their employment (something like "400 block of elm street in OKC" etc.). That said, I do think its at least arguable to publish the employer when the person works closely with children, etc.

However, in this day and age it matters little. Co-workers, bosses, neighbors, etc. constantly check people they know on OSCN and OKC.gov and sites like those - so the secret would get out to those it matters eventually anyway.

[Rover]

Right. We can all pay to learn pretty much anything about anybody. You support employers doing that and using all that information to make decisions about their employees? I don't.

That's all pretty far from the topic.

Again, a great leap and conclusion to indicate I approve of either. You don't want reason, you apparently want an argument. Hostility just for hostility.

[Rover]

You are okay with impacting an employers' bottom line and reputation by public shaming the employer in mass media, even though the employer has really nothing to do with what happened. If they aren't strong enough to handle that, it doesn't matter right? Any means necessary.

I seriously doubt that this will impact any employers bottom or top line unless they deal in services where this behavior or level of judgement is relevant. I don't really care who is changing my tires but I might care if they are taking care of my children.

[mkjeeves]

Again, a great leap and conclusion to indicate I approve of either. You don't want reason, you apparently want an argument. Hostility just for hostility.

Right. Your posts have been only emotion, no reason and you haven't responded to the issue directly about the negative impact on employers but it hasn't kept you from posting.

[mkjeeves]

I seriously doubt that this will impact any employers bottom or top line unless they deal in services where this behavior or level of judgement is relevant. I don't really care who is changing my tires but I might care if they are taking care of my children.

Fast and loose with others bottom lines because the ends justify the means.

[stick47]

An unintended consequence would be if two people of the same name both work at a place listed in the news report.

[Rover]

Right. Your posts have been only emotion, no reason and you haven't responded to the issue directly about the negative impact on employers but it hasn't kept you from posting.

I'm sorry. I missed the "facts" presented supporting it will affect any employer's bottom line. Heck, it may even improve it. It may depend even on how the employer reacts and who their customers are. But frankly, I doubt it has any effect at all.

This seems to have touched a raw nerve ending for you.

[Mel]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the media publishing the employment information - only because its hard to see the 'newsworthiness' of it. Other than that, its not top secret info. is pretty readily available and the person being arrested should have been smart enough not to have given their employment information to the cops - there is no law saying you have to that I'm aware of and the lawyers I work with usually tell their clients not to divulge such info when being arrested for ANY crime.

Also, I find most people overreact on this sort of topic. The idea this somehow routinely and exorbitantly punishes the employer is not the reality in most cases. People are not going to stop patronizing a particular business in measurable numbers simply because an employee was arrested for public lewdness.

If the employer did get dissed for what their employees did we would have a lack of respect for our government.

[mkjeeves]

This seems to have touched a raw nerve ending for you.

Likewise. And has brought out your incredible arrogance as well. When your every post attempts like the above to insult with words like "paranoid" "ignorant" "naive" "hostility for hostility" there's some deep underlying issues at play that have no connection to reason.

[Rover]

And I promised not to get suckered in by these kind of rants. Lol. That'll teach me.

[soonerguru]

I would agree that it would make more sense for the media to post a rough idea of the person's address over their employment (something like "400 block of elm street in OKC" etc.). That said, I do think its at least arguable to publish the employer when the person works closely with children, etc.

However, in this day and age it matters little. Co-workers, bosses, neighbors, etc. constantly check people they know on OSCN and OKC.gov and sites like those - so the secret would get out to those it matters eventually anyway.

I agree with this point. However, by publishing the employers, it drags the employers into it and implies they should fire the offenders. Not saying they shouldn't fire them but this just creates an additional burden on society. Once these people are made unemployed for public sex, they become our problem, either through unemployment benefits, or through their inability to find meaningful work, as they have been scarred by the arrest.

[BBatesokc]

An unintended consequence would be if two people of the same name both work at a place listed in the news report.

Actually, this is an excellent point, in a broader sense.

While the odds are lower of two people with the same name working for the same company (except in instances of large employers - like state agencies) the odds are much higher that multiple same named individuals will fall under the category 'retired' which was used for several of the men.

One example.... A man named Jay Stout was arrested. A quick Google search found 7 Jay Stout's (on a single Google entry) in Oklahoma of retirement age. Additionally, many people will know someone of a listed name but have no idea where they work (a neighbor or old schoolmate) - so that person could be wrongly associated with the activity and arrest.

Speaking of Jay Stout - interesting his employment wasn't listed as 'retired, former Piedmont councilman.'

Also, Ernest Gene Hall apparently listed his employment when arrested as a Stillwater High School coach - However, the school says they've never employed anyone by that name.

Fortunately, many of the media outlets also posted mugshots for visual confirmation - but many did not.

I personally think if a media outlet is going to publicly identify these sorts of individuals then they need to include their date of birth - which is much more available than their employer's name and a hundred block of where they live.

As for listing the employers, I really guess it has to be an 'all or nothing' policy. I can certainly see people arguing for not publishing the employer's names, but I also could see when it would be considered 'the public's right to know' - and since that could be interpreted differently by different people, I go back to 'all or nothing.'

[BBatesokc]

I agree with this point. However, by publishing the employers, it drags the employers into it and implies they should fire the offenders. Not saying they shouldn't fire them but this just creates an additional burden on society. Once these people are made unemployed for public sex, they become our problem, either through unemployment benefits, or through their inability to find meaningful work, as they have been scarred by the arrest.

Honestly, in my almost 17-years documenting street prostitution lewdness arrests, I find the negative impact on most of those arrested to be temporary and not nearly as dramatic as some people imagine.

I hear from a great many of the men arrested for soliciting public lewdness/prostitution (some I busted but many the police did) and they often periodically email me updates. Most do not get fired (or even divorced). Those that do, seem to find re-employment rather quickly. Naturally this will not be the case for some. Especially those with other 'issues' regarding prior arrests, anti-social behavior, etc.

Most simply learn their lesson, take their lumps and move on down the road.

A few tell me they are occasionally burdened with the co-worker, acquaintance, neighbor, etc. that later learns of the arrest via a Google search and the 'nightmare' pops back up for a brief bit.

Keep in mind that now a pretty large percentage of Americans have or will have an arrest record and or conviction at some point in their life. I Read a study that says 1/3 of Americans have been arrested by age 23. Another says more than 1/4 of all americans have an arrest or conviction that pops up on a routine public records search.

Throw in the accessibility to all court records like VPO's, municipal tickets, etc. and 'public shaming' is far from unique and is only getting worse. What used to be a ticket that was just your little secret, is now archived forever online for others to scrutinize.

I think a much bigger issue in regards to employment are those individuals who make the news for much more serious crimes, yet their guilt or innocence has not been established and may not for up to three years in some cases. Often these people lose their employment and cannot find new employment until the case is resolved.

Personally, I'm not (obviously) completely against arrest records being made public. In reality, as this trend continues (which it will), the stigma and 'shock value' will wane as it simply becomes so common that people don't really care anymore.