Privacy protects equally, even convicted killers!

A Toronto Star article was discussing the publicly perceived imbalance of the government protecting an individual's (albeit a convicted killer) privacy interests to the detriment of other interested parties (i.e. the public at large and more specifically the families of murdered individuals who assert their need for more information). In part, this desire for transparency is a deep seated desire for closure by coming to grips with why such horrific tragedies like the one's they suffer have happened and further to hopefully prevent re-offending of similar heinous crimes.This article shows the optics of how the general public perceives privacy as well as the need for balance between competing interests. While even murderers do have a privacy interest, it does appear to make sense to tell the public the motive for criminal behaviour (which the open courts principle supports).  However, there is the possibility that there are other factors at play which make the government's actions legitimate yet cannot be revealed, which must also be considered. In any case, the article does provide an interesting interaction with class discussions of whether, if ever, there should be the right to forget once a sentence is served, showing the competing issues at play.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/03/17/when_governments_protect_a_killers_privacy_mallick.html