Guilty until proven Innocent -- justice in America?

[The Northerner]

Run time: 03:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnohwZoTLjo   Posted on YouTube: July 07, 2011 By YouTube Member: RTAmerica Views on YouTube: 302   Posted on DU: July 07, 2011 By DU Member: The Northerner Views on DU: 1675

 
In light of high-profile criminal cases headlining America's TV screens - the Casey Anthony trial and the DSK case -- RT's Anastasia Churkina takes a look at the ties between the U.S. criminal justice system, the media and the court of public opinion. If you thought they were independent of one another - think again.

[Butch350]

1. would you post this...

if it was your granddaughter she killed.

You guys here want the media to cover everything you blab about on DU - but let them cover
some partying bimbo who killed her daughter and covered her and the truth up and you all get upset.

You attack the media when they don't follow your desired format.

[RZM]

2. She wasn't 'proven innocent.'

A better phrase would be 'found not guilty.'

Of course it's RT, so the journalistic bar is about as low as possible.

[efhmc]

7. True. Being found not quilty and being innocent very different.

[RSillsbee]

11. It may be RT but that piece was spot on NT

[jerseyjack]

3. Interesting that Bloomberg is ordering a stop to "perp walks."

[RSillsbee]

4. Cases like this

should beunder a complete media blackout until after the trial. She was convicted in the media before she ever went to trial

[ProfessionalLeftist]

5. I actually agree with that...

...too many people have been "convicted" by the media. Let the courts do their jobs first - then report the outcome afterwards. But the corprat-owned media makes a fortune off of reporting on these cases and their smarmy pundits like Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond build their little careers off of them, by spreading misinformation, lies, sensationalism, innuendo, and one-sided reporting. Thus, I doubt we'll ever see a ban on trial reporting, "Court TV" and the like, as much as I wish we would. It's too profitable. And the Almighty Dollar is GOD in the US - all else be damned.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

8. By "media" do you mean newspapers?

I followed bits and pieces through Huffingtonpost linking to AP articles. It didn't seem like they were promoting an agenda, just what revelations that occurred during the trial that day. Reading through the evidence (and lack there of) I'm still amazed she wasn't found guilty on the lesser charges of manslaughter or child abuse in light of her leading police in several wildly different directions, potentially putting her daughter in further jeopardy. Can someone explain that one to me? Clearly, I'm not a lawyer!

[RSillsbee]

10. I'd rather look at it from the other end of the pipeline

the Police Officers, Officers of the Court, Corrections Officers. Coroner ,EMTs nobody discusses the case W/ any reporter from any media outlet.

[jerseyjack]

6. Read about the Supreme Court case of Dr. Sheppard.

He was victim of media frenzy. How many others are in prison because they were convicted by the media instead of a jury?

More likely, how many indictments were incited by the media rather than by facts?

[olegramps]

9. Well in this case you don't have a case do you?

As one juror has publicly stated she was found not guilty do to a lack of evidence. But she was not found innocent. There is very little to like about Casey Anthony. In fact the whole family looks to be seriously dysfunctional.

Our court system goes to extremes, as it should, to protect the innocent even to the point that sometimes the guilty escape conviction. A free press can be far more effective in protecting against false imprisonment than actually affecting the outcome of a trial leading to conviction within our system. Look at what happens in dictatorships where the press is muzzled and people are railroaded on false charges. Our forefathers were well aware of the flagrant abuses that the aristocracy committed with false imprisonment, torture and the silencing of opposition.

Let the light of day shine on every investigation, every prosecution and every conviction.

What results in most cases of false convictions is the lack of proper representation that often calls for extensive costly investigation resources. In Casey Anthony's case she was fortunate to get expert representation that was able to effectively neutralize the prosecution's case of circumstantial evidence. What I would like to know was their involvement solely predicated on compassionate interest or was it spurred by sensationalism? I find their champaign celebration to be ghoulishly inappropriate in light of the fact that an innocent child's life has been lost. Their motives may be as flawed as some over zealous law enforcement people who fail to fairly investigate a case. When you have the resources it very possible for unethical attorneys to scam the system as it is for the innocent to be falsely convicted. Its a two edged sword that can cut either way as we have seen when people with unlimited resources escape justice.