Florida, the sunshine state, has one of the most easily accessible court records systems, thanks to the Sunshine law.

Anyone arrested has his or her mugshot available online for anyone to see as well as police reports and all court documents. And if they aren't directly available you can easily request them, especially if you're a member of the media. That's why you keep hearing about the infamous Florida man, who seems to be always doing crazy things.

A problem with this open system is that it's only one side of the story that you are getting and too often we only hear that side. Most media outlets put the mugshot of the person accused on display, which associates the crime with that person, regardless if they are guilty or innocent. Most people will remember the accusation and in most cases, unless it was a major crime or well-known person, we won't hear about the outcome.

As a student journalist myself, I've engaged in that - using a person's mugshot as the display picture on a crime story. But even though it is legal, and most news outlets consider it ethical, I have to ask myself and others if it is the best course of action? Aren't these people entitled to some privacy, especially if the crime committed is not a major one?

I'm starting to think that posting mugshots on a news website or publication is not the best course of action. Anyone who wants to know what the accused person looks like can search online and find it for themselves, so nothing is hidden. But unless there's a wanted person or someone who could be a danger to society, that we need to warn people about, I don't see a need to publish everyone's mugshot in the newspaper or online.

Journalists have a responsibility to inform the public, but are also responsible not to harm anyone or convict them before they have a day in court. Though journalists always should be making it clear that if a person is accused of a crime it doesn't necessarily mean that they did it, they should also make an effort to get the other side of the story. The information that's easily accessible is mostly showing the accusers side, but the harder part is reaching out to the accused and getting their side of the story. I think a crime story is not complete without obtaining the accused person's side of the story, which can be challenging depending on the situation.

When journalists do their job right they should help solve crimes or inform the public. But in some cases journalists do not do their job properly, by taking sides in a case for instance, which can lead to actual harm. I remember when Nancy Grace was still on air she interviewed a woman whose son was missing and kept cross-examining her and accusing her of being involved in her son's disappearance. The following day she committed suicide. I can't say that Grace caused that, but obviously, she didn't help.

So, journalists need to understand that their actions have an impact and thus can harm people if they are done wrong. That is something every journalist needs to take into consideration and weigh the consequences of when making their decisions.