It is sort of relevant. By Richard Dawkins. I read it in A Devil's Chaplain, but it is here too: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml
and there's also
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy10.html
on the other hand
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/constitutionscourtsandlaw/trialjudge.shtml
Clare Pascoe Henderson wrote:
Hi Niall
Niall McKay wrote:
However, my confusion is related to whether
a) in a media saturated world it is ever possible to have a 'non prejudiced jury'. (and
I mean a group of people who have never even heard of the events or participants).
b) is a completely ignorant jury necessary?
c) if no - then how influential is the power of the mass media?
d) can justice ever be done when the mass media has so much power?
I think you raise some valid points. My short answers would be no, maybe, very, and possibly not as the law stands now :-) But to me, the most significant question is how to achieve justice given the power of the media in relation to court proceedings. Most of our common law (which is essentially case and precedent law) is still derived from the era when the media didn't have as much power to obtain information about cases, nor as much power to disseminate the information to the public. And that's certainly a good argument for saying the law needs updating. But judges are bound by case law, almost more so than enacted legislation. So what would be necessary in order to change the degree of media influence would be enacted legislation that would override outdated common law. But that requires a degree of consensus in parliament, since that's where legislation is enacted. And often a degree of pressure from the public, too (witness the changes in rape and domestic violence laws as a result of the push for recognition of women's rights). Does the public want to change it, or do they like being able to read all the gory details in the train on the way to work? Does parliament want to enact legislation that would facilitate a fairer system? I'm dubious about that! Reduce the power of the media, and you reduce the power to influence the populace through the media. And that certainly wouldn't suit John Howard!!
Sheehan's article painted the judges as completely unreasonable - which I think
must be exaggeration. But were they a little wrong? or is our system wrong? or...
Probably a bit of all of those :-)
PS - I am not here arguing for limiting journalistic research and scope - however I think there
needs to be an extremely tight set of guidelines about how the media will report, especially when it comes to legal matters.
There is. You should see behind the scenes, and watch each newspaper's legal team combing draft articles for the slightest thing that might be illegal for them to print! Our rules are tighter than some countries, looser than others. In the messy middle, in fact :-)
Perhaps the judges in this case were unwise, perhaps not. But if
there was less sensationalism the effects on everyone, especially victims, might be less...
I'm not so sure about that last. After all, there's a certain amount of
consolation for the victim in knowing exactly the thing that Sheehan
said was bad: that Sheikh's name won't be forgotten. Ok, so maybe it will be. But there's far more likelihood of others being aware *even without a guilty verdict* that he's potentially dangerous if his name is
thoroughly splashed across the media. And that might get awfully close to trial by media, but perhaps it's also a form of trial by population consensus, which is, after all, how our politicians are elected...
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
