It's extremely damaging to a fair trial to have people reaching judgment about the case in the newspapers and on the radio before the facts are heard in a case.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's not fair that the accused is not protected from adverse publicity whilst the accuser is guaranteed anonymity, whatever the verdict.
One of the risks of a public trial is a public verdict.
One thing I know from personal experience, judges hate it when parties talk publicly about their cases. There are a lot of things about our criminal legal system that need to be changed, and this is just one of them. Prosecutors know how to play the press. Most defendants don't.
Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.
And understandably so, that when you're in legal jeopardy, you really cannot put yourself in a position to open yourself up to the media.
I know the pundits and the news media have carried a lot of commentary about cameras in the courtroom, and there's a lot of controversy about it as a result of the Simpson case. But I have not had enough time to step back and enough time to evaluate that.
Good reporting should have the same standard as in a courtroom - beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment means a lot. As a journalist being accused of invading someone's privacy, there is always a risk that it will stick to your name.
When it comes to those who are accused and their right to defend themselves, it is perfectly reasonable to expect relevant evidence to be made public, and I am in favour of open justice.
If you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide a certain measure of truth from the public.
No opposing quotes found.