Thoughts On Justice & Modern Media
With certain highly sensationalized cases, I find myself questioning the role that the media plays in regards to justice. It is a principle of justice that a person being accused of a crime shall be innocent until proven guilty. That principle unfortunately is not in the constitution, but it a basic principle of law and justice. When a person is being prosecuted, the prosecution is trying to prove to the judge and the jury that the individual is guilty of the crimes brought before the court. At this stage of a case, no one can know for sure whether the defendant is guilty or not, hence the reason why we have courts in the first place.
My concern is mainly directed toward how the media infringes upon a persons right to a fair and speedy trial, mainly by painting the defendant as guilty before the prosecution and the defense has presented the case in full. Personally, it is sad that the Constitution does not include the clause that a person is “innocent until proven guilty.” Some people however would point to the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment to say that it does.
Take for instance the Casey Anthony trial or the Conrad Murray case. How many other cases in this country have close to the same circumstances? Yet, why are those not “sensationalized” by the Media? How does the Media get involved in one particular case in the first hand? The Conrad Murray case is of course sensationalized since it deals with the death of Michael Jackson. But, is that really fair and equal justice that some cases get more or less attention than others? And is it really a fair trial if your case happens to be sensationalized on national television? Yes, it might bode well for you if you are the prosecutor, but if you happen to legitimately be an innocent individual whose life and death rests in the hands of the jury, is that really what you want? To have the media disfigure and blow out of proportion facts that could be true or false?
One interesting conversation I had on Facebook concerning the Casey Anthony trial involved a friend of mine proclaiming to the world how awful Casey Anthony was and how she was guilty and should be locked up for life. My response to this was that I wasn’t sure whether she was guilty or not simply because 1) I was not there, 2) I don’t know all the facts surrounding the case, 3) That most of those watching it on the news have not read the briefings and case files in order to arrive at the conclusion that she is guilty.
Yes the Constitution guarantees a citizen the right to a speedy and PUBLIC trial, but does it give the media and the public the right to take away your innocence before you have been proven guilty?
