I've never understood America's infatuation with watching trials unfold real-time. I didn't watch a minute of the OJ Simpson trial. I watched very little of the Casey Anthony trial - mostly because my wife wanted to watch it and I was in the same room. To me, they were no different than every other defendant in every other trial that has no affect on my daily life. These were murder trials and there was nothing more unique about these trials than any other murder trial other than the media attention they garnered.
Over the next several months, politicians, media, and anyone with a pulpit will offer their opinions on the lessons we should learn from the Anthony verdict. Using my pulpit, I say there really is only one lesson to learn:
The media should not cover courtroom proceedings until after the verdict is rendered.
Here's why:
1) Impartial jury. In both the Casey Anthony and the OJ Simpson trials, the state had to find jurors in a locale different from a different region. Why? Because the media in the local area covered the proceedings so heavily, it was impossible to find twelve men and women who had not already formed an opinion on the case. As more and more trials achieve the types of ratings the Casey Anthony trial attained, the ability to find impartial juries will decrease. Will we then export our trials to foreigners? Will juries consist only of those people who have no TV, no internet and never read a newspaper? Are either of those groups likely to possess the necessary intelligence to properly digest evidence and render a proper verdict?
2) The truly innocent. Remember Richard Jewell? The jury of public opinion convicted him of the Olympic Park bombings. Media coverage of the accusation ruined his life. We later learned that Eric Rudolph actually committed the bombings. How does Richard Jewell get those years back? Or take the recent case of Strauss-Kahn. Initial media reports vilified this man. Later news articles reported the accuser discussed the financial windfall she would be receiving for the accusations and highlighted her questionable past. The media now treads very lightly reporting this case instead of just dropping it completely.
3) The Justice System. I don't have an opinion of innocence or guilt of either OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony. I didn't sit on the jury and I didn't review the evidence ; nor do I have any intention of doing so. A jury already did that for me and decided there was not enough to convict (not that the person was innocent). Our justice system assigns twelve citizens at random to make those decisions for us. You either believe in this approach to justice, or you do not. The alternative is to have one person or a select group of people make all the decisions - which gives them highly corruptible power. I'll take my chances with the random twelve.
4) Jury tampering. The jury knows when a trial is receiving media coverage. Cameras in the courtroom, a full gallery, press outside the courthouse; these are all evidence there is tremendous interest in the court case. Jurors, as much as I like to believe they want justice above all else, are human beings. Press coverage means book deals and money. What is likely to generate more interest in the jury's story, a verdict everyone expects or a verdict no one expected? More interest means more money. The likelihood of corruption is too high when celebrity is a possible end result of controversy.
I think we can learn a lot from France and Canada, and I'm sure several other countries, who have banned the media from reporting on ongoing investigations. It isn't to protect the guilty. They do this to protect the wrongly accused. Americans used to believe it was better for one hundred murderers to go free than to kill an innocent. I'm saddened by the fact our perspective appears to have changed.
Over the next several months, politicians, media, and anyone with a pulpit will offer their opinions on the lessons we should learn from the Anthony verdict. Using my pulpit, I say there really is only one lesson to learn:
The media should not cover courtroom proceedings until after the verdict is rendered.
Here's why:
1) Impartial jury. In both the Casey Anthony and the OJ Simpson trials, the state had to find jurors in a locale different from a different region. Why? Because the media in the local area covered the proceedings so heavily, it was impossible to find twelve men and women who had not already formed an opinion on the case. As more and more trials achieve the types of ratings the Casey Anthony trial attained, the ability to find impartial juries will decrease. Will we then export our trials to foreigners? Will juries consist only of those people who have no TV, no internet and never read a newspaper? Are either of those groups likely to possess the necessary intelligence to properly digest evidence and render a proper verdict?
2) The truly innocent. Remember Richard Jewell? The jury of public opinion convicted him of the Olympic Park bombings. Media coverage of the accusation ruined his life. We later learned that Eric Rudolph actually committed the bombings. How does Richard Jewell get those years back? Or take the recent case of Strauss-Kahn. Initial media reports vilified this man. Later news articles reported the accuser discussed the financial windfall she would be receiving for the accusations and highlighted her questionable past. The media now treads very lightly reporting this case instead of just dropping it completely.
3) The Justice System. I don't have an opinion of innocence or guilt of either OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony. I didn't sit on the jury and I didn't review the evidence ; nor do I have any intention of doing so. A jury already did that for me and decided there was not enough to convict (not that the person was innocent). Our justice system assigns twelve citizens at random to make those decisions for us. You either believe in this approach to justice, or you do not. The alternative is to have one person or a select group of people make all the decisions - which gives them highly corruptible power. I'll take my chances with the random twelve.
4) Jury tampering. The jury knows when a trial is receiving media coverage. Cameras in the courtroom, a full gallery, press outside the courthouse; these are all evidence there is tremendous interest in the court case. Jurors, as much as I like to believe they want justice above all else, are human beings. Press coverage means book deals and money. What is likely to generate more interest in the jury's story, a verdict everyone expects or a verdict no one expected? More interest means more money. The likelihood of corruption is too high when celebrity is a possible end result of controversy.
I think we can learn a lot from France and Canada, and I'm sure several other countries, who have banned the media from reporting on ongoing investigations. It isn't to protect the guilty. They do this to protect the wrongly accused. Americans used to believe it was better for one hundred murderers to go free than to kill an innocent. I'm saddened by the fact our perspective appears to have changed.
Posts
2 comments:
Interesting points, Brian. There's no question that the media have sensationalized and often rushed to judgment in high-profile cases.
The other side, though, is that we as citizens have a right to observe trials. We can see for ourselves whether justice is being done. Did the judge rule correctly on issues? Were the arguments for each side complete? Did the defendant get strong, vigorous representation?
If a jury sits in for society in the jury box, then you could also argue that the media sit in for society as witnesses to the trial and its procedures. Despite all the abuses, I'd rather see justice conducted out in the open, for all to see, instead of behind closed doors. If we ban media coverage, I think we're opening the door to ever tighter restrictions around who can and can't attend a trial, and I wouldn't want to see that happen.
The system seems to be working despite media excesses. The DSK matter, the Anthony trial, OJ ... all came out far differently from what might have been expected given the coverage.
I really liked what you said about better to free 100 murderers than put one innocent person to death. It's that kind of attitude that protects both freedom and justice.
Thanks for the comment, Pete. I had a similar discussion with my wife last night. The right to observe trials is something I support. I just don't want any observers to discuss it until AFTER a verdict. Once the jury has completed their job (an all appeals exhausted), the media should feel free to dissect every aspect of the trial(s) to their hearts' content. The more difficult item for me to discern is pre-trial publicity. Does the public have a right to know about mass murderers and to be on alert? I would argue yes. Does a jury who remembers reading about the "Baseline Killer" before he was caught have a prejudice now that a suspect is on trial? I would hope not. I prefer to err on the side of protecting people from false accusations, which means banning the media from reporting on, but not attending, trials
Post a Comment