Guilty until proven Innocent – justice in America?
Published: 08 July, 2011, 01:00
Orlando : ORLANDO, FL - JULY 7: A heart lies at the center of the taped mouth of Edward Mehnert, 26, in sympathy for Caylee Anthony, the dead daughter of Casey Anthony, after Anthony was sentenced for lying to law enforcement July 7, 2011 in Orlando, Florida. (Roberto Gonzalez/Getty Images/AFP )
(12.0Mb) embed videoTAGS: Celebrity, Children, Crime, Scandal, Politics, Sex, Mass media, Information Technology, Corruption, USA, Culture
In light of high-profile criminal cases headlining America's TV screens - the Casey Anthony trial and the DSK case – RT 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.
Innocent until proven guilty – it’s a hallmark principle of the American justice system, which is lately often shoved aside. This starts with the vigor of some of the arrests.
“Young African black and brown subjects being shot down on the street. In an obsessive kind of way. Fifty shots, sixty shots, lying on our stomach, in our back, as we flee – run or walk” says M1 from rap group Dead Prez.
This is also reflected in the baiting of suspects into offenses in cases of entrapment.
“Entrapment is not legal. Entrapment is getting someone to do something that they wouldn’t normally do,” says former FBI agent James Wedick.
Perp walks that parade suspects in handcuffs for the world to see also undermine the principle of presumption of innocence, with people often assuming guilt when they see anyone handcuffed and escorted by officials.
The media frenzy devouring some cases and not others also influences this perception.
“I find the media to be full of s**t!I think it’s guilty until proven guilty in these cases. Our government is changing the laws,” says Alicia McWilliams, aunt of a Newburgh 4 case member.
Sam Antar is a former white collar convict who knows the criminal justice system’s discrepancies inside and out.
“I had lied under oath for two years covering up my crimes! When I decided to cooperate with the feds, it took the feds two more years to de-brief me,” he says.
Now a teacher, he says media coverage also affects the jury pool.
“They see an image of a guy in handcuffs, they see an image of a person being arrested, they see an image of a person doing the perp walk, and they’re affected just like anybody else – because we’re all human beings”.
So, are you really presumed guilty from the get-go and how much of a role does the media play?
“Let’s face it – if you’re accused of a heinous crime, it’s going to be in huge headlines on Page 1. When you’re exonerated, it’s Page 27 below the fold, two inch column, and your neighbors somehow didn’t manage to catch it that day, so everyone still thinks you are a child molester,” says editorial columnist Ted Rall.
Take the not guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony murder case involving her two year old daughter. The court of public opinion remains split from the court of justice. All thanks to non-stop media coverage of the case for the past three years.
“She was found not guilty? Wow! That’s crazy,” says one New Yorker.
“I think it’s crazy, I think she definitely did it,” says another.
“From the media I assumed she was going to be guilty,” echoes a third.
In the case of former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn – the media satisfied their gluttonous taste with extreme passion – only for the case to crumble.
“I think there should be a law that media outlets are required to play your exoneration up as big and as long as your accusation,” says Rall.
This is rarely the case. As dubious practices in the criminal justice system spread, so does the finger pointing and questioning the future of human rights in the US.
“Where are we going as Americans? I am 51 years old, and I am like oomph! This is getting ugly. This is really getting ugly,” says Alicia McWilliams.
The principles that the United States once prided itself in are under fire. Suspects are having to fight their battles publically from the minute of their arrest, underlining that the discrepancies in the US criminal justice system are alive and kicking.
Political commentator Michael Haltman says that the mainstream media is only delivering what they know they can profit off of. Speaking to RT about the Casey Anthony trial, Haltman says it fill the bill perfectly of what Americans want.
"It had a little bit of everything and fit people's interest, and the media knew that because the ratings told them," he says.
Haltman adds that as long as a story "has the pieces of the puzzle that the American public wants to watch," than the mainstream networks will broadcast it. In the case of the Anthony trial, you had a young child, a young mother, a missing body and lying to police.
"It had every aspect of a crime show," says Haltman.
He says that the American public could be focused on much more, "Whether it's jobs or whether it's the debt ceiling or a nuclear Iran."
Unfortunately, however, that isn't what the people are hungry for.
Inmates respond to torture with hunger strikeCalifornia convicts are protesting what they call torturous conditions at many of the state’s prisons and have resorted to a massive hunger strike in opposition until things are changed. |
08.07.2011, 02:15
6 comments
Congress' debt discussion "Jive talk"With the debt ceiling drama surrounding the American economy only getting worse and worse, the whole country is aware that the issue is becoming a national problem. |
Quoting a rap star? Yes, that's going to prove your point. When you write a story about Jews, why don't you quote Hitler as an expert.
Caley Anthony was found "not guilty". The jury did not say she was "innocent". So she can still be guilty of the crime. The prosecution simply did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty. So these comments from the public that she was guilty can still be true. The fact that she was found "not guilty" despite public opinion says a lot about our judicial system.
What idiot is going to believe "well she's in handcuffs so she must be guilty". That has to be one of the dumbest statements I ever heard. Considering the public view of "police brutality", it would be more logical to think that someone would consider a defendant innocent first ("the police are always wrong" mentality).
There's nothing wrong with the criminal judicial system in the U.S. The only people who truly complain about it are the ones who did something wrong and are being held accountable for it.
I would certainly not want many of the people who are reacting to the verdict in this trial to sit on a jury that was to decide my fate. It is alarming that so many do not seem to know what the basis for a conviction is. While they were in school, they should have been taught that it is is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove a case, and that the defense has no requirement to prove anything. This case really ended when the prosecution rested, and the judge could have ordered a directed verdict of acquittal. The only other case that I remember in which the prosecution was so intent to convict an accused that they didn't even bother to prepare a case, was that of William Kennedy Smith, whose uncle, Ted Kennedy, was the real target of the prosecution.










From the reaction of so many to this trial, I wonder why we don't dispense entirely with trials and go right on to the execution? Just imagine, instead of cops arresting people, they should all carry a length of rope to throw over the nearest sturdy branch and execute suspected killers right on the spot. This would certainly save a lot of money paid for courts, evidence, labs, forensic technicians and a host of other costs that would only be satisfied by fulfilling American blood lust. We still would be able unctuously to proclaim that justice has been done and preserve our rectitude. What hypocrisy!
From the reaction of so many to this trial, I wonder why we don't dispense entirely with trials and go right on to the execution? Just imagine, instead of cops arresting people, they should all carry a length of rope to throw over the nearest sturdy branch and execute suspected killers right on the spot. This would certainly save a lot of money paid for courts, evidence, labs, forensic technicians and a host of other costs that would only be satisfied by fulfilling American blood lust. We still would be able unctuously to proclaim that justice has been done and preserve our rectitude. What hypocrisy!