Is 'innocent until proven guilty' a farce?

Consider media coverage of high profile murder cases like OJ Simpson. Even after being proven innocent in a court of law people still think he did it based on presumptions brought forth through the media...Hell, I think he did it too.

The latest ones are the reported "Craigslist killer", Philip Markoff, and "tot mom", Casey Anthony. In Anthony's case, the defense is looking to move the case because she says the local media has already instilled in people that Anthony is guilty.

What are your thoughts?

If you're going to have free speech and press and an imperfect justice system that is just how it is.

If you're going to have free speech and press and an imperfect justice system that is just how it is.

duxup

These are only a few cases. The vast majority of cases still work under innocent till proven guilty.solid_mario

[QUOTE="solid_mario"]These are only a few cases. The vast majority of cases still work under innocent till proven guilty.spazzx625

[QUOTE="duxup"]

If you're going to have free speech and press and an imperfect justice system that is just how it is.

spazzx625

it can be but OJ definitly did it in fact the only reason he isnt behind bars is because DNA testing was considered too new at the time and thus thrown out as evidence

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="solid_mario"]These are only a few cases. The vast majority of cases still work under innocent till proven guilty.solid_mario

Once a person is indicted it is pretty much worthless. Society views an indictment as if the person was found guilty. This was a hot topic/large section in my political science class.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to the court of public opinion; only a court of law.

Even after being proven innocent in a court of law

spazzx625

And failure to prove guilt is not the same as proven innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to the court of public opinion; only a court of law.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Even after being proven innocent in a court of law

Oleg_Huzwog

And failure to prove guilt is not the same as proven innocent.

Most people don't really care about justice; they care about retribution.

We like to think we are civilized, but ultimately we still need to lock people up in stockades and throw rotten vegetables at them.

The media fills that need by giving us criminals, and showing us how they are punished.

Scott Peterson most likely killed his wife, but there is no way on Earth that he received a fair trial. They were making television movies about it before the case had even gone to trial. All of the evidence against him was circumstanstial, but it didn't matter, because there wasn't a single person in the United States of America who hadn't all ready heard about the case. Everybody all ready "knew" that he was guilty.

Public opinion sways juries...In high profile cases it would be hard to find a fair jury due to media coverage, no?spazzx625

It would be hard, yes. Which is why the really high profile cases involve jury pools that number in the hundreds, so the court can search for jurors who are least likely to have already reached any sort of conclusion.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Public opinion sways juries...In high profile cases it would be hard to find a fair jury due to media coverage, no?Oleg_Huzwog

It would be hard, yes. Which is why the really high profile cases involve jury pools that number in the hundreds, so the court can search for jurors who are least likely to have already reached any sort of conclusion.

Good heavens, we'd all better hope not!

Somebody mentioned the media- recall that media is a for-profit organization and that they constantly milk us for those Sperry jinger type headlines. But as long as we only want to hear / see the dirt in the world (we sickly crave this) that is all that a for-profit group is going to feedus.

How's about all of us looking only for the fuzzy warm feeling happy rainbow smurfy stuff in the news? Then it will be like the ads on the bottom of these GS thread pages- advertisments will appear down there based on what was written up here.

We are innocent until proven guilty. We are guilty for our preference in the media news, however.

Innocent until proven guilty can only be applied to the court players themselves. You can't make outside factors approach it that way unfortunately.Sajo7

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]Innocent until proven guilty can only be applied to the court players themselves. You can't make outside factors approach it that way unfortunately.spazzx625

[QUOTE="Sajo7"] Innocent until proven guilty is just a summary of the court process. People will believe whatever they want though. Sorry if I'm not clear but I'm not entirely sure what your stance is either.spazzx625

That seems to assume you believe everything you see in the news and that once you're exposed to it you can't overcome that. Polls I've seen seem to indicate a fairly strong distrust of the media.

duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"]

That seems to assume you believe everything you see in the news and that once you're exposed to it you can't overcome that. Polls I've seen seem to indicate a fairly strong distrust of the media.

spazzx625

[QUOTE="duxup"] Except they don't just come in off the street and make a call on the case and the general populous doesn't decide the case. spazzx625

The legal system is far from perfect, but I give people a lot more credit than some do.

As long as it doesn't effect the jury, its fine, that's what the media does.