ChatterBank0 min ago
Will we need courts in the future ?
23 Answers
Recently there have been a fair few high profile cases where people are accused of something and tried by the media. The Jimmy Saville case being the most recent. Whilst I agree the apparent evidence seems damning it is all from the media, none of us have seen hard evidence as a jury would and yet anyone landing on our planet would assume the man has been tried and found Guilty by a court of law.
What has happened to innocent until proven Guilty, or is it something else that has gone in the Stalinist state we live in?
What is next, sentencing by vigilantes ?
What has happened to innocent until proven Guilty, or is it something else that has gone in the Stalinist state we live in?
What is next, sentencing by vigilantes ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Depends whether you think that the media should be prevented from reporting any case until the trial when such 'hard evidence' has been given on oath or affirmation. Do you?
That's not possible in Savile's case. But , in any trial, and long before it, the media are reporting allegations which are 'not hard evidence as any jury would [see]' In Savile's case we have seen women on TV making allegations. What do you want instead, that would satisfy you?
That's not possible in Savile's case. But , in any trial, and long before it, the media are reporting allegations which are 'not hard evidence as any jury would [see]' In Savile's case we have seen women on TV making allegations. What do you want instead, that would satisfy you?
Mick, have you spoken directly to the people he allegedly abused? If not then it must be from the media like most of us, and we know how they manipulate facts.
You seem to have tried him and found him guilty from your wording?
FP, it will be possible to have evidence on oath, and that is exactly my point. The Saville case is only the latest though, there are many others. I see many are latching onto the Saville case, but think wider.
What wold satisfy me? I wold like to see no reporting of names until someone is at least charged. Even then it should be limited.
If a case gets to court it must be increasingly difficult to find an impartial Jury. That is fundamental to our justice system.
Or perhaps you disagree, trial by media and naming and shaming anyone regardless is good?
You seem to have tried him and found him guilty from your wording?
FP, it will be possible to have evidence on oath, and that is exactly my point. The Saville case is only the latest though, there are many others. I see many are latching onto the Saville case, but think wider.
What wold satisfy me? I wold like to see no reporting of names until someone is at least charged. Even then it should be limited.
If a case gets to court it must be increasingly difficult to find an impartial Jury. That is fundamental to our justice system.
Or perhaps you disagree, trial by media and naming and shaming anyone regardless is good?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Like the Abu Qatada case?
Seems the evidence against him is that he's meant to have given someone money for a computer!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19891520
Or is that different?
Seems the evidence against him is that he's meant to have given someone money for a computer!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19891520
Or is that different?
I agree youngmafbog. It would be better if no reporting or comment were made before the trial had started. But that's a 'counsel of perfection' because there will always be so reporting of investigations; you couldn't have "Little girl disappears, presumed dead" and no more until someone was being tried.
At present, there's nothing to stop allegations being reported before the man named is even arrested, let alone charged.And we see wild speculation and reports about what neighbours say about a suspect, even one not officially named , both before and after arrest. That should be prevented.
My own gripe was of the trial itself. Papers would give great prominence to the opening by prosecution counsel, as though that were proven evidence and the defendant was guilty. When the man was acquitted, that fact was not reported at all, unless the case had national prominence right through.
At present, there's nothing to stop allegations being reported before the man named is even arrested, let alone charged.And we see wild speculation and reports about what neighbours say about a suspect, even one not officially named , both before and after arrest. That should be prevented.
My own gripe was of the trial itself. Papers would give great prominence to the opening by prosecution counsel, as though that were proven evidence and the defendant was guilty. When the man was acquitted, that fact was not reported at all, unless the case had national prominence right through.
Generally, i would agree with the point that the media, desperate to gain a coup against rivals, and also because of the 24/7 world we live in nowadays, often jump to conclusions and speculate wildly.
One only has to think back to the poor lass in Bristol and the totally irresponsible naming of Chris Jeffries and subsequent wild and damaging speculation that followed. Sky and various of the tabloids were totally out of order in the way they presented the information in that case.
Here though, I am not so sure. For instance, it is the Met police who yesterday issued the statement that " Saville was a predatory sex offender with a national scope who abused young girls", and went on to suggest that he was responsible for the abuse of at least 25 girls. So, it is the Police stating this for the record, not the media making stuff up youngmaf - so what should the media do in this circumstance?
Sadly, given the nature of this type of crime, the naming of a suspect also encourages other potential victims to come forward and give their evidence.
One only has to think back to the poor lass in Bristol and the totally irresponsible naming of Chris Jeffries and subsequent wild and damaging speculation that followed. Sky and various of the tabloids were totally out of order in the way they presented the information in that case.
Here though, I am not so sure. For instance, it is the Met police who yesterday issued the statement that " Saville was a predatory sex offender with a national scope who abused young girls", and went on to suggest that he was responsible for the abuse of at least 25 girls. So, it is the Police stating this for the record, not the media making stuff up youngmaf - so what should the media do in this circumstance?
Sadly, given the nature of this type of crime, the naming of a suspect also encourages other potential victims to come forward and give their evidence.
Public figures accused of wrong doing have always experienced this - it is human nature and a free media merely reflect and amplify that natural behaviour.
The only alternative is a set of rules, measures and punishments that attempt to suppress it.
<What has happened to innocent until proven Guilty, or is it something else that has gone in the Stalinist state we live in?>
you are allowing your clichés to confuse you mafbog, if you actually think about the 'stalinist way' you'll realise that it was just the opposite of what you describe; the regime was most notable for its Show Trials in which people were 'proved' to be guilty in Court, and which were then publicised in state controlled media.
The only alternative is a set of rules, measures and punishments that attempt to suppress it.
<What has happened to innocent until proven Guilty, or is it something else that has gone in the Stalinist state we live in?>
you are allowing your clichés to confuse you mafbog, if you actually think about the 'stalinist way' you'll realise that it was just the opposite of what you describe; the regime was most notable for its Show Trials in which people were 'proved' to be guilty in Court, and which were then publicised in state controlled media.
-- answer removed --
I'm not sure I get your point. Jimmy Savile is dead and therefore cannot be tried, by the media or anyone else.
And unless I'm mistaken the evidence comes not from the media but from alleged victims via the media (hence the term).
I agree that a lot of the statements about Savile seem quite sweeping, but I doubt, were he alive, that that would be the case.
I'm assuming, by the way, that you are not one of those in our "Stalinist state" clamouring for the extradition of Abu Qatada and co, and complaining about the delay :-)
And unless I'm mistaken the evidence comes not from the media but from alleged victims via the media (hence the term).
I agree that a lot of the statements about Savile seem quite sweeping, but I doubt, were he alive, that that would be the case.
I'm assuming, by the way, that you are not one of those in our "Stalinist state" clamouring for the extradition of Abu Qatada and co, and complaining about the delay :-)
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
