PDA

View Full Version : Social Media and the courts



NightFallTech
30-09-2012, 06:23 PM
As i'm sure everyone is aware, they arrested a guy for the rape and murder of Jill Meagher in Melbourne this week, however, one thing that has come out of this case with its level of publicity is social media 'reporting' on the criminal history of the accused. (material that could be said to prejudice a jury).

What are peoples views on this?, is the law simply out of date?, in this age of information is hiding a persons prior convictions a legitimate thing to expect?

Admin
30-09-2012, 06:37 PM
it's not about the law being out of date , but much rather a fair trial for the defendant as well as the prosecution
The laws of sub judice rules forbid people for publishing, or commenting on a case which is before the courts in a way that could influence the trial's outcome.you don't want a jury going in with a biased view

our court system isn't flawless but it's the only thing we have

NightFallTech
30-09-2012, 06:42 PM
Couldn't it be argued that his history is very relevant to the trial?, people don't really exist in a vacuum away from their past...

kaz
30-09-2012, 06:43 PM
Social media shouldn't play any part, its evidence and evidence only!!
Years before, people would group outside of courts and form hate groups against the offenders like they did with Anita cobbys killers and Janine Baldings. Shouldn't be any different.
Hang the c*** I say!!!

NightFallTech
30-09-2012, 06:49 PM
Hang the c*** I say!!!

Agreed, Especially because it looks like this wasn't his first crime in the current spree, let alone his past exploits. This is an evil man. It's hard to understand how people get that broken.

Admin
30-09-2012, 06:50 PM
Couldn't it be argued that his history is very relevant to the trial?, people don't really exist in a vacuum away from their past...


a person is persumed innocent during trial , when it comes to sentencing time that is when they look at past crimes


Social media shouldn't play any part, its evidence and evidence only!!
Years before, people would group outside of courts and form hate groups against the offenders like they did with Anita cobbys killers and Janine Baldings. Shouldn't be any different.
Hang the c*** I say!!!

difference between years ago and today , is that in todays world where social medai plays a big part in our lifes , it is hard to find jury that isn't tainted

also remembering that there has been many people that have been wrongly convicted of crimes , only for years later to be found innocent.

When we have only been presented with very few facts that the media relays to us it makes it rather hard for a person to comment on the case

NightFallTech
30-09-2012, 07:18 PM
When we have only been presented with very few facts that the media relays to us it makes it rather hard for a person to comment on the case

Agreed : but leading the police to the body does imply involvement one would think...

(not to mention the old newspaper clippings circulating about priors)

While innocent until proven guilty does apply, in this case you'd have to draw a long bow to find innocent i think.

Admin
30-09-2012, 07:34 PM
Agreed : but leading the police to the body does imply involvement one would think...

(not to mention the old newspaper clippings circulating about priors)

While innocent until proven guilty does apply, in this case you'd have to draw a long bow to find innocent i think.

we have only been told that he took the police to the body , there has been quite a few cases where police have planted evidence or spun a story to make a case stick

remember that what we see in the media isn't always the case , the media have their own agenda at selling a story