Guilty Until Proven Innocent
By WeenitsMom
@WeenitsMom (492)
United States
March 15, 2007 3:36am CST
Okay, what do you think? I don't think that the media ought to be able to report the names or pictures of people that are suspected or even arrested unless they are missing. To me it seems that people are being tried in the press. We are suppose to be "guilty until PROVEN guilty" However, more and more often, people are guilty until proven innocent. Most people seem to believe that if the police have arrested them then they did it. Case closed. This especially dangerous in a capitol case. once a person has been convicted and sentenced, it is very difficult to wil your freedom back. Many poeple have been sentenced to death and later found to be innocent! Perhaps if they had not first been tried in the media, they would not have been convicted at all. What is your take on this?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@mari61960 (4893)
• United States
16 Mar 07
I agree, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If the media would stick to the facts the problem probably wouldn't be as bad as it is. I hear people say all the time...look there's the guy that killed so and so.. well how do they know he killed anyone..just because a person is arrested for something should by no means represent guilt. In a way it can be good and bad. Let's take the case of a person arrested for child molestation. Innocent person- Now everyone thinks he/she is a pervert. The label will stick with them and some people will always wonder if they were really guilty of something???
Guilty- Other people may see this persons picture and come forward as a victim or may know something about this person that will help convict them.
I think that the way the media blows it all out of proportion is the big problem, not the actual reporting it.
1 person likes this
@mari61960 (4893)
• United States
19 Mar 07
That's it in a nutshell...it's all about the money.
1 person likes this
@shakeroo (3986)
• Malaysia
19 Mar 07
This is always the case. The media here are also the same. They would always write up something that make people think that the accused person or persons are guilty before they are proven so. The most important things to these media are their business rather than telling the truth. :(
@WeenitsMom (492)
• United States
20 Mar 07
I agree. The media is always screaming about their rights and how, "the public has a right to know" but doesn't the accused have the right to be innocent until proven other wise?
@sirensanssmile (3764)
• Netherlands
16 Mar 07
Unfortunatly that is a product of a free society. Freedom of the press.... Too bad the press take it as freedom to be a jerk and display one sided stories (Sometimes)
I think it is pretty crappy that the media gets wind of something and starts a circus around it before the person is even tried. I think that shows poor ethics.
Even if the person is found innocent, then the media sometimes still insists the person is guilty and viewers may tend to agree only because they didn't get a fair portrayal of the other side of the sotry.
That and even when the media lets off because the person is found innocent then the people still have to deal with viewers.
I understand that big stories need to be shown but I would prefer them to withhold their reporting until after all said and done.... Not like tht would happen, but it would be nice.
1 person likes this
@WeenitsMom (492)
• United States
17 Mar 07
I disagree (about it being the product of a free society). The media isn't doing this because of "freedom of the press" they are doing it for ratings and circulation. As for being the product of a free society, the government tells us what we can and can't smoke, ingest, inject, read, watch, purchase and even who we can and can't marry. I don't think that limiting what the media can do is a limit to our freedom. In fact, I believe that I could argue convincinly, that it would enhance our freedom. O.J. Simpson is a great example of what you are saying about people being convicted even when they have been found innocent. If the media would stop showing people's anmes and faces then perhaps those people would get a real trial instead of being convicted in the media. Thanks for your response.
@coolseeds (3919)
• United States
15 Mar 07
I agree. In the USA you are GUILTY. Plain & simple. If you don't have money... you will go to jail. The media should with hold information.
However what if the media's information is what set you free?
None the less America has a screwed up legal system. People have been convicted of murder without a body or any concrete evidence. We are no longer innocent until proven guilty. Which is a step toward communism. You can't lock up every one because you THINK they committed a crime.
@WeenitsMom (492)
• United States
17 Mar 07
I'm not sure that I agree that it's a step toward Communism, but it sure isn't what the founders of the United States had in mind! Thanks for your response.
