The June 2 paper detailed the death of 12-year-old Albert Lopez Jr. and the charge of manslaughter against the 13-year-old boy accused of killing him.
Young Albert was identified. Star editors decided not to name the other youth, who lived with Albert and was described as his best friend.
Readers have wondered what our policy is when it comes to naming juveniles in stories because a pattern about whom we identify and whom we don’t isn’t obvious. Although there is not a specific set of rules, we are generally consistent in making these tough decisions.
The process, which involves senior editors, the story’s editor and reporters, is guided by a sentence in our employee handbook under identification of victims, witnesses, juveniles: “In situations involving juveniles charged with crimes, stories will be judged on an individual basis, with your editors.”
That indicates clearly that there can be no precise rule because the circumstances can vary with each case. Age, intent and heinousness of the crime are factored into the decision.
In recent incidents involving guns at schools locally in which no one was hurt, we have named youths 14 and older, but have not named younger ones.
However, in cases such as a 12-year-old accused of first-degree murder and a 13-year-old accused of second-degree murder, we have used names, a check through our archives shows.
In the most recent case of Albert Lopez’ death, police released the 13-year-old’s name and the Tucson Citizen and two of three local television stations used his name in their reports. One news director volunteered that it was not a decision made easily.
The decision here was discussed late into the evening, but at no time was what other news outlets were doing part of the discussion. And that’s the way it should be: Each organization should decide for itself and not be caught up in any pack mentality.
“The deciding factor here was intent – whether the boy who pulled the trigger intended to kill the other boy,” says Assistant Managing Editor Dennis Joyce, who worked with Anita McDivitt, editor on the story that was reported and written by L. Anne Newell and Thomas Stauffer.
“We knew throughout the day that it sometimes takes months for such a question to be answered with any legal certainty but just as often the story becomes clear quickly. At one point in the day, when police said there would be a charge and it would be manslaughter, it looked as if we would name the suspect. Another factor was that two shots were heard by some people, which might argue against a single accidental discharge. But later it became clear that the reason for the criminal charge was the use of a handgun, and recklessly – not that the intent was to do harm.”
Additionally, says McDivitt, the 13-year-old was a ward of the state, being cared for by Albert’s family. During the arraignment after the youth’s arrest, Albert’s family recognized the incident as a tragic accident with no intent and outwardly forgave the 13-year-old.
Each factor added up to a time when naming the accused was inappropriate.
The Star made a fair, compassionate decision. If the facts of the case as they first appeared hold, we can continue not to name the boy. If they change, we can name him.
Charging younger juveniles as adults and treating them as adults is a much bigger issue. Personal experience tells me there’s no magical difference between a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old. But, for the time being, I’m glad we’ve found some line to draw about whom deserves protection because of his or her age.
Access about to be denied
Today’s the last day to enjoy access, a bonus among the stack of items inserted into your Sunday paper. The magazine, billed as America’s guide to the Internet, is no longer being published.
It was simply a business model that didn’t work.
Readers liked access and we’re sorry that the magazine won’t continue to be part of our Sunday package.
