The Presumption of Innocence
Over the past several months, there have been many real life court cases played out on television. In fact, there is even a station devoted to the programming, viewing and editing of court cases called, COURT T.V. This station is graced with interesting women as commentators, some former prosecutors, lawyers and even judges all weighing in and giving blow by blow commentary on the events of the day. Since cameras are excluded from some, not all of the trials, are televised live, and more often than not what you see is a summary of what the T.V. person whats you to hear and know via a court feed, i.e. a commentator giving bits and peaces of what transpires inside the courtroom.
Take the Michael Jackson case as an example. Regardless of your personal feelings about Mr. Jackson's guilt or innocence, how many of us are actually listening to the real evidence and applying the presumption of innocence to his case? I often hear comments by many people about what a 'nut job' he is or 'how could he have slept with those young boys,' or 'wacho jacko' some conclusions which I may share as well. But the fact remains that we have a judicial system that is in place to judge him made up of a court and in this case a jury and there is that old presumption of innocence until proven guilty that lurks in the background How could the media be seen as a responsible entity and these women fill their oaths as attorneys to be fair and impartial yet broadcast and tell the story as they want it to be. Is it not often the case that our own feelings about someone or something replace the state of the evidence as it exists in coming to a conclusion about someone's innocence or guilt?
Which brings me to the question of the day: has the presumption of guilt replaced the presumption of innocence in the American judicial system?
Thank you for your minds.
Take the Michael Jackson case as an example. Regardless of your personal feelings about Mr. Jackson's guilt or innocence, how many of us are actually listening to the real evidence and applying the presumption of innocence to his case? I often hear comments by many people about what a 'nut job' he is or 'how could he have slept with those young boys,' or 'wacho jacko' some conclusions which I may share as well. But the fact remains that we have a judicial system that is in place to judge him made up of a court and in this case a jury and there is that old presumption of innocence until proven guilty that lurks in the background How could the media be seen as a responsible entity and these women fill their oaths as attorneys to be fair and impartial yet broadcast and tell the story as they want it to be. Is it not often the case that our own feelings about someone or something replace the state of the evidence as it exists in coming to a conclusion about someone's innocence or guilt?
Which brings me to the question of the day: has the presumption of guilt replaced the presumption of innocence in the American judicial system?
Thank you for your minds.
18 Comments:
Great topic, Barbara, and yes, it would seem to me that you may be correct. The media feeds on these sensational trials, people express opinions on street corners and across restaurant tables, people who, as you said, get their only information from TV programs such as Entertainment Tonight and The Insider.
Are we quicker to judge before hearing any evidence or just pieces of evidence? I think of the OJ trial today as I write this. All the evidence in the world did not get him convicted. We sat and watched and wondered, how could this be? Maybe, those of us who watched it are getting the idea that celebrity trials are a sham, that people of fame and means won't be tried in the same way as we plain folk.
And yet, sometimes I think that plain folk kind of take some secret, weird, rooted-in-jealousy delight in seeing the celebrities fall.
Thanks for this topic and I am eager to read others' opinions here.
Patti brings up an very good point where celebrity can work in FAVOR of the defendant in a criminal case and looked upon as 'evidence' of his/her innocence. I am also thinking of the Kennedy nephew who was acquitted on rape charges.
But to some extent I think the media and its role in celebrity cases (by celebrity I mean publicised, as Scott Peterson became a celebrity also, to some extent) has swung in another extreme direction and has judged people unfairly before the fact.
Food for fodder.
Good to see you, Patti!
I have a spoof article from The Onion whose headline sums this up perfectly:
"MURDER SUSPECT TO BE TRIED BY MEDIA: Overworked Justice System Grateful for Help"
A vindictive lynch mentality is often illuminated through, if not encouraged by, media coverage ... for some reason, the most base emotions-in-reaction-to-tragedy seem to be encouraged ... along with schadenfreude, the taking of pleasure from others' misfortune. Perhaps not every gruesome detail of every gruesome crime needs to be revealed. Perhaps it would be healthier for all of us to NOT receive this information, but rather leave it for disclosure to those who will actually sit in judgement.
Honestly, sometimes it feels as if we are a nation of Madame Defarges, knitting as we watch and enjoy the beheadings.
I absolutely think that most of us believe that if a person is brought to trial, then that person must be guilty. I also believe that this has always been true.
Winning or losing a trial is mostly about having the smartest, or the best, lawyer. Public Defenders, bless them for doing what they do, aren't going to do as well as the big money guys.
O.J., Robert Blake, folks like that, get away with murder.
I've always said that if I'm ever charged with a crime, and if I am innocent of that crime, I will elect to have a trial by JUDGE rather than by jury. I believe that judges will hear the evidence and judge based on the evidence. On the other hand, if I ever get charged with a crime of which I am guilty, I will elect to be tried by JURY. Juries can be swayed no matter how strong the evidence.
I hate Court TV. It is the worst TV station ever.
People will do anything to avoid jury duty, but they will watch a trial on TV. Why?!?!?!? Are people that insane?!?! Trials are not like an episode of Matlock, where exciting things happen. They are clinical, dry, and about as exciting as watching grass grow.
The twits (I refuse to call them commentators or experts) just sit around in a big circle jerk and make stuff up. Commentating is what I am doing now - what they do is speculate. If this were Court TV, I would be guessing what tomorrows subject will be. I do not care if they were lawyers or judges, all they are doing is guessing. I can guess too - and my guesses have the same chance of being correct as their guesses. Experts indeed.
I blame the 24 hour news networks for the rise of Court TV. When you have 24 hours to fill up with news, what do you do? Why you latch on to non-stories! Trials are perfect, they last a long time and you can fill hours and hours of air time with them. Take the Peterson case. Was it national news? People go missing every day. People get murdered every day. So why was this case national news? Because it made a good "who done it" story. All the major networks latched on, and so for the trial Court TV was there.
I only hope that America decides that a "watch the paint dry" channel would be more exciting than the swill on Court TV, so the station goes off the air. But due to the number of insane people that own televisions, I do not see this happening. People will continue to watch it to satisfy some voyeristic need. And when they get the jury summons in the mail, they will try anything to get out of it. They might miss the latest celebrity trial on Court TV!
It is not just court T.V. that speculates, it is the media in general. Real trials have become a form of entertainment for American audiences, and as such they are scrutinized by standards that desire to entertain. Whenever I turn on any T.V. show, on any station lately, there is that pre-conceived spin that is part and parcel of the way the trial is presented to the world at large. Actually, this makes me sad. But Tan Lucy may have a point regarding a court trial v. a jury trial. At least the judge follows the law.
Wow! You have some cute puns there! You said that Court TV is "graced" with women commentators and we thought instantly of Nancy Grace. She was a prosecutor and on her shows on Court TV and Headline News, she gets a lot of flack for sounding like she is presuming people guilty. But that's her job: to be witty and entertaining. The Media has no obligation to presume anything, just give fair opportunity for opposing opinions. It's fun to see people with different views argue and bicker and that's why the worst show on TV, Jerry Springer, is so popular. Only the court and jury need to try and be impartial, not Court TV. We can form our own opinions and are free to express them just as people who hold opposing ideas have free speech outside the courtroom. I like that old country song: We live in a two-story house, her's and mine!
No, I don't think so.
I do think, however, the presumption of guilt is played in the media at times and of course in our every day conversations with one another.
I still believe, though, that jurors take their jobs seriously and realize what that means. I believe that in most cases defendants are looked upon as innocent (within the court setting) until the prosecution presents a compelling enough case for conviction.
As for MJ, I think he's probably guilty of molesting some boys. That's just opinion and nothing more. He is wierd, but that's not a criminal offense.
I think he will most likely be aquitted of the charges, because I do believe he and other stars have been and are targeted for money. In my heart, I hope he is just a strange guy and has never harmed a child. If he has, I sincerely hope he's convicted.
I guess we will all know the outcome soon.
In the "court of public opinion", I think the defendant is usually "guilty until proven innocent" (a presumption of guilt). But the good news is (IMHO), I think there's still a presumption of innocence in the actual courts of law. That's why O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake were found innocent -- even though the vast majority of us feel that they were probably guilty as hell. I think there's a VERY good chance that Michael Jackson will be found innocent, too. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a pretty strict standard, if you think about it. And it should be that way.
Jamie,
You are right to say that what we hear on court t.v. is only the opinon of someone. But more often than not, people take these opinions to be factual, and you will often here others making statements about these cases based upon the opinions of others, without the benefit of hearing the testimony itself.
As for juries being fair and impartial: actually, juries are unpredictable, and in criminal cases where a defendant is in fact guilty, he/she actually has a better chance for acquitall when there is a jury rather than court trial. But if you think that jurors come into the case without an opinion, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but that is simply not the case at all.
Which is why, to me, having media with so many opinions about actual court cases is so dangerous. It clouds the minds of those who see it without hearing all of the actual evidence as it exists.
A side point, linked to my literary post below. Thanks to winterwheat, I am reading THE CASTLE by Franz Kafka. One of the literary themes that runs through Kafka's books is that an individual is guilty until proven otherwise. I think much of these is releated to Kafka's own personal issues with guilt that mirror his writing.
I still hate Court TV. I tried to watch it just a little while ago and vomited. Now I need a new television because the old one smells bad.
Wow, you've hit on my soap box. The worst offender right now is Nancy Grace - I find her antics to be highly unethical with regard to her position as a lawyer (who should be supporting our constitution) and as a journalist (who should be presenting facts in an accurate manner). Any person arrested is indeed guilty and she features guests who constantly assume actual guilt. I am horrified by our media-cum-justice-system. One of your poster points to O.J. being found innocent as proof that our system still works, but I say O.J. is proof the MEDIA found him guilty and holds more weight that any court in these United States. O.J. has been imprisoned by our society, found guilty by society, trumping the criminal court's decision. This attitude in the media is one reason our lawyers and judges are getting killed by "dissatisfied" members of the public. Color me disgusted by Court T.V. and C.N.N.
The Court of Public Opinion is very strong, yet only those in the courtroom are hearing everything said (unless tv is broadcasting "gavel to gavel"), and the news gives us the best sound bytes. Judging someone without hearing and seeing all the evidence and testimony given is wrong.
I have served as a juror once (a dental/medical malpractice case) and I can tell you, if the 12 of us were an accurate example of every other jury in the nation, I don't think I would choose to be tried by a jury of my peers. I was very disappointed how people let their emotions about various subjects color their judgement.
Also, an interesting point was that we were not allowed access to ALL material. We had questions, but they concerned areas not covered by either lawyer. We could only deliberate over what was presented.
And as for Michael Jackson ... I think that because of his warped upbringing, he is not completely capable of adult behavior, or having a truly adult relationship. This doesn't make it right, just very sadly wrong. In his case, I think that he is targeted by people trying to exploit him, and he does indeed fall for the "bait."
My guess is that a lot of what is reported in not exactly truth (whether intentional or not). Yes, we do presume people guilty way before they can "prove" otherwise. Myself in that situation now -- foster child got a "better deal" with her social worker (worker doesn't like the fact that i and my partner are a same-sex couple, and not hispanic). they are taking their time working up "allegations" (of which, we are not to be told ??? -- we feel they can only use our frustration at the "system" against us, since discrimination would be illegal on their part) ... so whatever they make up, we will have to "prove our innocence". sometimes i wonder what i'm doing here, besides the fact that i was born here. thanks, barbara ... i really do enjoy your writings!
You are very good at stirring up comments. It would be nice if you put a news board on your sidebar and it would go on beyond your next post and would be easier to navigate. And you could have many topics.
I should be the judge of this case. I always treat people fairly. I also forgive people quite easily.
I wish I knew how to work add links. I cannot even figure out how to link this blog with anyone elses. Any help would be most appreciated. Thank you Tom and Icy for your suggestions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home