Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Do you think the media should be allowed to report evidence before trials?

This is inspired by the Casey Anthony case, but isn't just about it. Its about all cases.

I just found this story on Facebook that someone wanted to share in support of our right to a fair trial without media bias...

"I want to share something that happened to me a couple of years ago to help you understand how media can twist facts and destroy your life. . . It was close to christmas and my boys wanted a four wheeler. I found one in a local paper for sale cheap. I got my brother and a friend to go check it out with me. While we were at the house swatt busted the door in arrested all of us. The man selling the 4 wheeler(stolen) had sold crack to a cop a couple weeks before. There was pot in the house so we were all charged and because we couldn't prove what happened found guilty. After the bust the local press said that we were there to buy crack. I wouldn't know what it was if I saw it. The entire small town turned on us. Even most of my family. My brother couldn't go in the Air Force because of the charge. I lost custody of my youngest sons in my divorce because of it. I have moved 5 hours away and drive back to see my kids every two weeks."

Do you think the media should be banned from reporting about the accused? Or do you think you have a right to know? Do you think its ok that this happened to this woman, as long as we can have our drama in the news?

 
metalcowgirl34

Asked by metalcowgirl34 at 4:26 PM on Jul. 8, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 12 (864 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (44)
  • This is such a good and thought provoking question. I know law enforcement and prosecutors have the right to with hold information from the press and public when they believe it is the best interest of their case. It happens all the time. It is actually not a right to have access to that information. On the other hand information is given out publically to gain support from the general public and put pressure on other parties involved (law enforcement, judges, elected officials, ect..). I have come to the conclusion that mass media in the cort room does not serve any prupose in these types of trials. I would prefer to have limited associated press access in high profile cases, no live television (or it can be recorded and aired after the trial is completed). Evidence or information can be reported as it unfolds in court through the media who was granted access. And yes, it can interfere with a "fair" trial.
    frogdawg

    Answer by frogdawg at 5:14 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • my question is, how couldn't she prove why she was there? she could've shown them the local ad in the paper. and i would think a simple drug test showing she had clean urine would've got her off the hook. anyway if she truly was innocent, that's just terrible what happened to her.

    as far as the media bias, it doesn't really matter anyway does it? the jury goes in un-biased, and they're the ones that make the final decision anyway.
    tnm786

    Answer by tnm786 at 4:29 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • While I hate what media coverage does to destroy what should be a fair trial...I also know that it's not going to go away without some serious censorship, and I'm not so crazy about that idea.

    I think what needs to happen more than anything is for people to wise up and not believe everything they hear. For juries to make an informed decision based on the facts presented, and NOT on what they heard in the news or to what conclusions their neighbor's friend's uncle jumped.

    A lot of people are gossipmongers, though. I unfortunately don't see that changing anytime soon. Especially after the Casey Anthony trial.
    DragonRiderMD

    Answer by DragonRiderMD at 4:32 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • the jury goes in un-biased, and they're the ones that make the final decision anyway.

    And then they receive death threats for deciding based on the evidence instead of the conjecture and biased, unfounded opinions everyone saw on the news.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 4:31 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • Yeah, and now look at the people on here BASHING the jury like they're murderers!!! I am afraid those jurors are going to have their lives ruined! And why? They had no part in murder.
    metalcowgirl34

    Comment by metalcowgirl34 (original poster) at 4:31 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • the judge hasn't even released their names, how are they receiving death threats?
    tnm786

    Answer by tnm786 at 4:32 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • @tnm....And seriously? You are ok with this woman losing her kids and her family because she couldn't prove why she was in that house?
    metalcowgirl34

    Comment by metalcowgirl34 (original poster) at 4:32 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • tnm, I've seen their names on FB hate pages for them. The names are out.
    metalcowgirl34

    Comment by metalcowgirl34 (original poster) at 4:33 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • And seriously? You are ok with this woman losing her kids and her family because she couldn't prove why she was in that house?


     


    anyway if she truly was innocent, that's just terrible what happened to her.   did you miss this part of my first answer?

    tnm786

    Answer by tnm786 at 4:33 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • DragonRiderMD.......its not censorship. Its in the freakin constitution. Right to a fair trial. Spreading bias like this is not giving anyone a fair trial.
    metalcowgirl34

    Comment by metalcowgirl34 (original poster) at 4:34 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN