Words: 667
Trial by Media The justification system is quickly being scorched in America by how the media manages all lurid cases. People are getting prejudged by the press and public before any legal action has taken place. I believe it is completely amiss for the media to interpret whether a person is guilty or innocent, before or even after a verdict has been established in a court of law. Take O. J. Simpson’s case for instance. Simpson was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. This case is known to be the most exposed trial in American history.
Nicole was found dead at 12:00 AM on June 13, 1994 outside of Brown’s condo in the Brentwood[->0],Los Angeles. She was found stabbed several times in the head and neck with defense injuries on her hands. With some collected evidence at the scene, police suspected O. J. Simpson as the murderer. There was no CONFIRMATION Simpson was the murderer, yet the media thoughtlessly covered the case thoughtlessly like hot cakes. The was an abundant amount of media participation on the case that it drove Simpson half crazy.
At one point, he had over 20 helicopters chasing him because he was on the road to committing suicide. He responded to this action by saying. “just gonna go with Nicole”. Bearing in mind the amount of harass he got from the media, one wouldn’t blame him! Even after this attempt, the media still had something conniving to say. “his actions were interpreted as an admission of guilt. ” Disregarding Simpson was found non-guilty, the media are considered winners in spite of what the majority of the public distinguish him as today.
It was a two and a half year-long case that took place about seventeen years ago. The media created biased views in the eyes of the public which gave the defendant really no chance to a fair trial. I believe this is not right at all. Without a doubt, trial by media conflicts with the judicial system and ruins the image of one’s life. Victorian MP, Theo Theophanous, was accused of raping a woman. One article stated, “He is accused of raping a woman inside Victoria’s Parliament building one evening in 1998, and has stepped down as minister for industry and trade…
Theophanous is robustly protesting his innocence …He is portraying himself as the victim of a smear campaign, and has suggested his accuser is after money. ” Numerous articles were spread and harsh comments were made by the public before he even got the chance to step foot in court. Where is the justification in this? After the lengthy process of having Mr. Theophanous’s name cleared in any wrong doing, he’ll still be criticized by the public, even if he was proven innocent. Because of the harsh media, he lost his career and reputation- professionally and privately.
Trial of media affects the lives of many in a way that is pure unimaginable. Human dignity is practically taken away. Some may say, we have freedom of speech and the media has the right to say whatever they desire. Well, yes. This is in fact true. Although, I believe if the media attacks the basic freedoms of others, courts should not be indecisive to strap it in. The media should at least receive support from courts imposing legitimate assurance of freedom of speech. This is suggested to protect one’s privacy and future.
The media provokes a status of public mania in which allowing a fair trial to take place is nearly impossible. Clearly through O. J. Simpson’s and Theo Theophanous’s case, regardless of the result of the trials, the accused will not be able to live the rest of their life without cold public scrutiny. No matter what the indictment may be, severe or ornate, a fair trial should be given and you are innocent until proven guilty in my eyes. [->0] – http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Brentwood,_Los_Angeles,_California