Nancy Grace: Guilty until proven Innocent
This morning, Katy Couric had an interview with Nancy Grace, one of the anchors of the infamous program, Court T.V. Let me just begin by stating that I do not like Ms. Grace. I feel as if her opinions and approach to our criminal justice system is dangerous, and that consequently, many viewers conclude her opinions to be one of fact rather than her own personal bias. To me, Ms. Grace does not preserve the time honored and cherished premise of guilty until proven innocent.
Ms. Grace has an agenda rather than a policy. Her fiance was murdered, which was a true shame. To heal herself, she went to law school, obtained her degree, and began working for the District Attorney where she prosecuted those in similar situations as herself. After that job, she began a co-anchor with the late Johnny Cochran and eventually acquired her own T.V. show.
Please do not be mistaken: there is nothing wrong with someone having an opinion about our justice system and acquiring an appropriate job as a channel for that opinion. But Ms. Grace does more. She has her own spot on a popular T.V. show. Operating from the premise that a criminal defendant is guilty until proven innocent, Ms. Grace does everything within her power to spin that premise and try to convince you, the T.V. viewer of a defendant's guilt. This is not only done by her voice, but she includes guests that support her own opinion. For example, Tuesday, I was watching Court T.V. She had several guests on her show spouting about what would happen to Michael Jackson while he was in jail, from his inability to wear a wig, to a special diet to visitors, etc. Mr. Jackson has not as of yet been convicted by any jury. Nevertheless, her views were vehemently contrary to Mr. Jackson receiving due process of law.
Is it not the job of each defense attorney to give his/her client the best defense possible?
Here is the question of the day: Do you believe in our criminal justice system? Do you think the media should be excluded from televising criminal trials, in progress, with unsequestered juries, i.e. juries who are not locked into a hotel with supervision or access to T.V.? Do you truly believe that everything should be done to preserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Thank you for your minds.
Ms. Grace has an agenda rather than a policy. Her fiance was murdered, which was a true shame. To heal herself, she went to law school, obtained her degree, and began working for the District Attorney where she prosecuted those in similar situations as herself. After that job, she began a co-anchor with the late Johnny Cochran and eventually acquired her own T.V. show.
Please do not be mistaken: there is nothing wrong with someone having an opinion about our justice system and acquiring an appropriate job as a channel for that opinion. But Ms. Grace does more. She has her own spot on a popular T.V. show. Operating from the premise that a criminal defendant is guilty until proven innocent, Ms. Grace does everything within her power to spin that premise and try to convince you, the T.V. viewer of a defendant's guilt. This is not only done by her voice, but she includes guests that support her own opinion. For example, Tuesday, I was watching Court T.V. She had several guests on her show spouting about what would happen to Michael Jackson while he was in jail, from his inability to wear a wig, to a special diet to visitors, etc. Mr. Jackson has not as of yet been convicted by any jury. Nevertheless, her views were vehemently contrary to Mr. Jackson receiving due process of law.
Is it not the job of each defense attorney to give his/her client the best defense possible?
Here is the question of the day: Do you believe in our criminal justice system? Do you think the media should be excluded from televising criminal trials, in progress, with unsequestered juries, i.e. juries who are not locked into a hotel with supervision or access to T.V.? Do you truly believe that everything should be done to preserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Thank you for your minds.
14 Comments:
The presumption of innocence is one of the FEW reasons left that I'm truly happy to be an American! Yes, it's incredibly important. I wouldn't live in a country that didn't have the presumption of innocence.
I wish that if there were going to be reporters and TV cameras at the trials, that they be required to cover gavel-to-gavel. It's when the public is fed only the best 'sound bytes' that distorted views are formed.
And Ms Grace is extremely opinionated. I can only take her in small doses, and mainly to either laugh or marvel at how things are portrayed by her and her guests.
In this age of multi-media coverage, I do think that juries should be sequestered.
I have a few problems with your post. Actually one problem.
You said she has a "popular TV show". Really, it is not all that popular. At any given time, less than 1% of the population is watching her. That hardly qualifies as popular.
And stop watching that useless channel! It is rotting your brain. You know that all you will hear on Court TV is crap, swill, and spin.
And Nancy Grace is a legend - but only in her own mind.
Hi Barbara,
Let me start this off by saying I am a huge fan of Nancy Grace. While I know that she does present a one-sided view of the law, I feel that she is driven because she is a victim's rights advocate.
Too many times we see how the defendent is portrayed as the victim. So where does the victim lie in all of that?
I admire her conviction and ability to come back from such tragedy.
Now going to your questions:
Do you believe in our criminal justice system?
No, too often we see repeat offenders being shuffled out of the system. It terrifies me. Out here we have a huge population of sex offenders that are being sent over here by the rest of Texas.
Do you think the media should be excluded from televising criminal trials, in progress, with unsequestered juries, i.e. juries who are not locked into a hotel with supervision or access to T.V.?
Yes, I was hearing how one of the jurors on the Michael Jackson trial already had a book deal in the works. There is too much coverage on trials and I think they do have an effect on appeals.
Do you truly believe that everything should be done to preserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Yes, but I'm against omitting facts or previous criminal activity that ties into the crime in question. I think jurors need to know everything.
Though I have been reading your blog for quite some time I have never commented due to the fact that most of your topics, though quite intetesting and thought provoking, are out of my league.
I am at the point in my life where I'm barely reaching out to the world and it's views and I would like to thank you for being my muse over the months and helping me shape who I will grow up to be some day.
I do believe in our system, but it is not without its failures.
Trials should not be televised. It adds another demention which a trial is not supposed to include, and participants will be tempted to act differently because of the cameras.
As long as shows such as Nancy Grace's are popular, they will stay on the air. I've seen a little of her show, and she is indeed a prosecutor. I love her southern accent! Court TV is not on the top of my list.
I've never watched Court TV. It sounds as if it is pretty terrible. I don't think that trials should be televised.
I do believe in the premise of innocent until proven guilty. I can't imagine NOT believing it that.
I DON'T believe that our criminal justice system is fair. If you have money you can hire a really good attorney and get away with murder. If you are poor you can go to jail for jaywalking.
Puppetress,
Thank you so much for your kind words...I am truly humbled, and appreciate your post very much.
Please feel free to post anytime. There are no right or wrong answers here, just questions.
Being a mother to two children, (one who just graduated from college, and another who is attending), I especially appreciate your comments.
All best,
bfc
I don't watch Court TV so I don't know the person you're talking about, but I'd take your arguments even further and claim that the news media bias viewers toward a guilty verdict without necessarily intending to.
By routinely using terms like "alleged" -- as in, "the alleged child molester claimed he was innocent" -- they brand defendants before a trial has even begun. When you say "the alleged child molester" people hear "the child molester."
Cripes, I wonder how many Americans even know what "alleged" means. Maybe they even think it means "guilty." Or "wayward." Or "evil." Or--(I want to use swear words here but I'll hold back in the presence of sweet Puppetress.)
My intellectual grandfather (my PhD advisor's PhD advisor) published a theory called Exemplification Theory. This theory holds that regardless of journalistic language, the examples given will affect people's memories of the story more than the text will. Research supports this. For instance, if there's a story on breast cancer and the text claims (correctly) that about 13% of women get breast cancer, but the 4 examples given consist of 3 women who got breast cancer and 1 who never did, guess what readers will remember about the rate of breast cancer? You guessed it: about 75% of women get it.
I would extend this research and speculate that fair textual reporting combined with a guilt-implying exemplar (e.g., a scary, guilty-looking picture) would bias readers toward the presumption of guilty. Now add that pesky "alleged" in the text and you've got a defendant who is guilty before proven innocent, at least in the eyes of the public.
Only the jury needs to presume innocence, the rest of us has free speech and right to opinions. If I see someone shoot someone I know they did it and I don't have to presume anything except knowing they are a killer.
i feel the system is not fair. watching court tv, news shows, etc. it's pretty much all about what they want your to perceive it to be -- not what it is. i'm amazed at how many people don't question if it's actually truth or not. on the other hand, we have talk shows sympathetically interviewing murder suspects ???
it's seems the country is really just flipping out. not to change the subject, but i was reading a couple of articles where the state of michigan wants to put into law where health care professionals can deny medical care to anyone they feel violates their moral views (who could that be? gays, lesbians, theives, single mothers, divorced people ???) anyway, isn't that kind of making these patients "guilty until proven innocent"? and guilty of what? it seems like people in the us want to be able to make discriminate judgements based on non-facts -- why?
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=29129
A true irony, I think would occur, if as a result of so much media coverage, particularly that set forth by Ms. Grace and Court T.V., someone like, say Scott Peterson, used this as a grounds for his appeal claiming that he was denied a fair and impartial trial.
Now that would be strange justice.
were even I don't like katie curic a very biased and rigid person
That woman should be strung up and shot, then drawn and quartered! Ask questions later! Guilty, guilty, guilty! ;)
While I kid, I'm in complete agreement with you. I find her ways to be perfect examples of everything wrong with American media in the legal arena.
Barbara, I'm amazed at your ability to come up every day with the most provocative posts - not only do you ask a question, but you frame the question in such nice ways.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home