Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
I was just wondering how you would even be able to prepare a defense when the media has pretty much found Rudolph guilty and spread it nationwide?
|
This is always something that concerns me. I've not seen much about this case, but I know how our media reports things - and the sort of reporting that goes on makes it very difficult (if not impossible) for anyone suspected of a high profile crime to get a fair trial - and as Timber said, everyone should be entitled to a fair trial, with the facts put before a jury and a judge. Any juror in this case will already know many things about the crime, many of which are likely to be media conjecture, rather than straightforward facts.
It sounds to me that it is almost certain that this guy is guilty, but he should still have a right to a fair trial to determine that guilt - anything less than the right of a citizen to fair trial by jury I would consider a step towards tyranny.
But this raises the question of media involvement and reporting of such cases. In a case such as this, I daresay the media played a role in having the guy apprehended - people knew what he looked like, knew his name etc. Should the media be restricted in what they are allowed to say about a case before trial in order to preserve the right to a fair trial? Or would you see it as a worse infringement of freedom to restrict the media?