In my opinion it seriously hinders what we refer to as "a fair trial" in this country. There are already far too many instances of innocent people being convicted of crimes they didn't do and of many criminals walking free. Anything that increases the risk of either of those eventualities should be steered well clear of.
The only benefit would be to the media owners who could enjoy the heightened media frenzies and subsequent increased profits. The OJ Simpson trial is the most prominent example of this, followed by the 19 year old English nanny who was accused of killing the baby she was looking after.
In the case of the nanny, part of the reason she was convicted was that she hadn't shown enough emotion, which divided public opinion. It is crossing the boundaries between justice being served and entertainment. Nor would the American system stand up to a "public interest" argument.
Someone mentioned that a system whereby the pubic voted would be good. I think that is also highly risky, as it would leave those on trial potentially open to prejudice or bias dependent on potential factors such as their race, religion, gender and appearance (far more if Joe public was sat in the judgment seat!)
The challenge for the contempt laws in this country as we know it is that as a result of the internet anything is available. This questions the fair jury concept. Again though, there is a difference between pro-active information seeking and passive information receiving through mass media channels, which can be almost impossible to avoid.
The American system may be great for media revenue but it would be at the cost to justice, which is priceless!
No comments:
Post a Comment