CRIMES, COURTS AND THE MEDIA

<!--$begin exclude$--><!--$end exclude$--><!-- text below generated by server. PLEASE REMOVE --><!-- Counter/Statistics data collection code -->

<script src="http://us.js2.yimg.com/us.js.yimg.com/lib/smb/js/hosting/cp/js_source/whv2_001.js"&gt;&lt;/script&gt; <script></script> <img src="http://visit.webhosting.yahoo.com/visit.gif?&amp;amp;r=http%3A//www.minoritiesinterests.com/articles.html&amp;amp;b=Microsoft%20Internet%20Explorer%204.0%20%28compatible%3B%20MSIE%206.0%3B%20Windows%20NT%205.1%3B%20SV1%3B%20GTB6%3B%20Mozilla/4.0%20%28compatible%3B%20MSIE%206.0%3B%20Windows%20NT%205.1%3B%20SV1%29%20%3B%20.NET%20CLR%201.0.3705%3B%20.NET%20CLR%201.1.4322%3B%20Media%20Center%20PC%204.0%3B%20.NET%20CLR%202.0.50727%3B%20.NET%20CLR%203.0.04506.30%3B%20InfoPath.1%29&amp;amp;s=1280x1024&amp;amp;o=Win32&amp;amp;c=32&amp;amp;j=true&amp;amp;v=1.2" alt="" style="display: none;" />

CRIMES, COURTS AND THE MEDIA

The legal profession started as a profession that brings relief to the people, it started as a profession that edifies the rule of law, it is a profession that is supposed to lend voice to the voiceless, defend the defenseless and, contrary to what we have today, where money rather than justice is what matters, the profession started on a charitable note.

 

Perhaps guilt is the reason why various bar associations in America make it compulsory for lawyers to undertake pro bono hours, an idea that I do not agree with. You don’t force people to do good, they must desire it, and they must really feel like it and put their all into it not for the sake of raking up compulsory pro bono hours.

The legal profession being a profession that defends the helpless therefore enjoins lawyers to take cases even if, in their opinions their clients are wrong. This is in consonant with the principle that an accused person is innocent until his guilt is proven. Proving his guilt is the job of the government, via its prosecutors, deciding his fate vis-à-vis the alleged crime is that of jury of his peers or the judge if it’s a bench trial, not anyone else’s especially not that of the lawyers because lawyers don’t judge cases they defend them.

This article is written to examine the role of the media in dispensing justice.

Legal issues, like every other issue, are reported in the media. The media sometimes get
overzealous in reporting legal issues, constituting itself into the judge and jury. Whenever there’s a high profile case, in other words cases involving celebrities, newspapers and TV stations go to work trying to outdo themselves in dissecting the cases by inviting the so called experts to analyze and give their opinions about these cases.

A lawyer, in response to a question on this issue, puts it succinctly when he said
“The lawyers who are put on television to explain the cases, who nobody would ever hire to be a real lawyer, these are only pretty faces and gentle voices, but they don't know anything about the law. And a lot of the cable television shows are distorting the legal system terribly by not having standards for who they allow to describe the law and analyze the law.”

This kind of attitude, to my mind deprives the accused of the benefit of innocence before his guilt is proven, especially in a system that makes use of jury such as we have here in the USA. How do you want a jury to vote when people who are close to him/her have been informed by the media that the defendant is guilty?

Apart from  the fact that some of these reports could be prejudicial to the accused persons and could lead to miscarriage of justice, it could also mess up the case for the prosecutors in the sense that juries might acquit defendants even in the face of overwhelming evidence against him just to assert their independence.

There are more to proving someone’s innocence or guilt than whatever information the media have sometimes and the fact that all the facts might not be available should be enough to put the media on notice that the guilt or innocence of a man should be determined by those whose duty it is to make that decision.

It is the duty of the prosecutor to not only bring the charges but prove the elements of whatever crime an accused person is being charged with, “beyond reasonable doubt”. It is the duty of the Jury, or the judge in a bench trial, to find that the facts proved are sufficient to sustain the charges as defined. It is the duty of the court to sentence after conviction. The duty of the press is to report the incident.

Preempting the court is a practice that is seriously frowned at in some jurisdictions. Cases may be reported but the guilt or innocence of the accused depends on whether or not the case against him was made out satisfactorily. When a charge is preferred against an accused person such issue is supposed to be sub judiced, the media may report the case it may not constitute itself into a separate judiciary trying the case. Where someone does that, such an individual or organization is in contempt of the court.

When the media goes after the accused person, everyone in the defense team becomes the devil's advocate, they are taunted by the public and forsaken by their friends and their families are made to carry a bag of guilt for their “misbehavior” simply because they did what is required of them as professionals. A soldier for example does not question the rationale behind a war he fights in; a lawyer defending a party in a case is more or less in the same situation.

I believe the various bar associations as well as ABA need to embark on an educational campaign so that people will appreciate the role of lawyers in dispensation of justice, if someone like Cully Stimson, a lawyer and deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs under the Bush’s Administration, does not understand it then ordinary man on the street deserves some form of education in that regard.


In conclusion, I believe the way and manner the media report high profile cases could make citizens to lose confidence in the judiciary in the sense that if an accused has been tried and found guilty by the media, acquittal in the court may give the impression that the court is not to be trusted and the stain resulting from such adverse opinion might not be easy to wash off. The court is therefore perceived, sometimes, as either intellectually deficient or materially corrupt.

I think it is the job of all and sundry to raise people’s hope in the judiciary, an institution that is regarded traditionally as the last hope of the common man. The judiciary needs to be given the chance to play its role in a democratic society. The system is set up in such a way that any party to a matter who feels aggrieved by a court’s decision in a case can appeal such a decision. This is the system, it has been working, we should allow it to work and if we feel like it is deficient there are proper means of channeling our reservation, if we feel like there are ways to better the system we can always make the suggestion.

The judiciary, like all man made institutions, is not perfect but it’s all we got. If we gang up against the judicial institution and it fails the common man will be the one to suffer for it.

 

 

<noscript></noscript>