The details that you have chosen

to publish are necessarily one-dimensional. Certain relevant facts were,

quite naturally, left unreported. You did not mention the fact that her

offense was contrary to the deepest values with which she was raised.

Nor did you mention that news of her crime broke the hearts of her parents

and the rest of her family. No one reading your stark report would learn

of the long hours that I held my wife as she wept over our daughter's

wrongful choices. And your readers would never be able to draw conclusions

about the ways in which grace and forgiveness function in this family,

or the specific ways in which they have been extended to our daughter.

Most importantly, you failed

to say anything about the fact that, in the two and a half years since

her offense, my daughter has, herself, worked through stages of remorse

and self-loathing, and on to repentance and a resolve to live as she has

always known she ought.

How could anyone reading The

Citizen know anything of the profound impact that the recent death of

my wife's mother, a woman of the highest moral integrity and deepest Christian

commitment, had upon my daughter's very orientation on life? Could they

know anything of the wonderful role that she has since assumed as aunt

to the two little boys who were born close to the time of her crime and

arrest? What could your readers possibly infer about the subtle ways in

which my daughter has come to evidence a love and respect for her parents

that seemed to be wanting some two and a half years ago?

Much less does your news bite

indicate that it took the Fayette County prosecutor more than two years

to draw up an indictment (justice in Fayette County may be happily blind,

but it appears to be unhappily lame as well), as my daughter and her family

have yearned for closure in this sordid episode. (Given the unreasonable

amount of time that passed between arrest and arraignment, and your corresponding

reports, passing acquaintances now wonder whether this young girl is a

habitual offender. Has she "struck again"?!)

These reports are, I think,

fairly common among small-town newspapers, but they are not universal.

What purpose, other than the further stigmatization and humiliation of

offenders and those who love them, do they ultimately serve? Armed only

with the information that you have provided, self-appointed judges in

the community may rest their case: "What need have we for further

witnesses?"

My daughter is unquestionably

to blame for inflicting the original wound. But our lethargic local legal

system has hindered its healing. And your paper has seen fit to pour salt

into that wound.

For obvious reasons, I remain

anonymous.

Name withheld by request

[The editor replies: Our intent

is to provide an accurate account of crime and law enforcement action to

a public that expects protection from criminals and criminal activity.

Undoubtedly, every one of

the names that appears in our news accounts of those arrested and tried

for crimes represents personal tragedies and family pain. This grieving

father's solution would be to ignore and thus cover up from public view

all those arrests and trials and deprive the taxpaying public of an account

of their law enforcement agencies.

The real question is: Why

should this case of admitted criminal activity be treated differently

than all others?

We rejoice in this child's

apparent rehabilitation. But first she had to be caught, exposed, tried

and punished. Not all such stories end this positively, however. We can't

predict which ones will and which won't. All we can do is give an accurate

report of what actually happened. Our job is not to ignore, but to report,

the truth. We have absolutely no apologies for doing our job.]