Freedom of the Press is an inalienable right secured in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, but what happens when it conflicts with another inalienable right: right to a fair trial? This is not a new predicament, but a persistent one that has only become more pertinent with the expansion of technology. The issue traces back to at least 1935 with the trial of Richard Bruno Hauptmann, the convicted kidnapper & murderer of Charles Lindbergh’s infant son. The media hysteria of the case prompted Canon 35, a series of court ethics guidelines that call for the banning of courtroom photography and broadcasting. Technological advances have only made the issue more controversial. While in earlier cases, such as the Hauptmann case, the press was reduced to still photography and audio tapings; today, technology has allowed TV cameras, even web cams, to be feasible in courtrooms. To insure discretion in the Kobe Bryant trial, the judge even went so far as to ban cell phones, fearing they could be used to capture visual or audio recordings of the proceedings. While some measures, such as gag orders or banning of cameras from courtrooms, have been implemented to curve access, the media continues to solicit for more--insisting their 1st amendment right allows them to broadcast federal and Supreme Court hearings. The courts, however, must honor their obligation to protect the rights of defendants to a fair trial first before appeasing the press. A fair trial cannot occur in conjunction with a camera in the courtroom. This practice only facilitates numerous problems: distract and influence the jury, interfere with court proceedings, and encourage lawyers and witnesses to act in their best interest instead of the client or the case's. These problems are the makings of a biased courtroom and the beginnings of the deterioration of the judicial system as a whole of we do not to anything to change it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I personally feel as if the right of a defendant to receive a fair trial is more important than a well-informed, somtimes too well-informed, public; however, we can't fail to acknowledge the fact that both these fundamental rights are protected in the United States Constitution. This issue to me seems one that can go both ways. Though I feel as if a fair trial is more important and should be given more emphasis, I don't think that freedom of expression should be taken away from individuals. If more limitations were placed on the media, restraing public awareness and limiting the amount of circulating information, I feel as if we would be going down a "slippery slope." Who is to say that the government would stop at just limiting the media? Where will the boundaries on these limitations be placed? Will we eventally deterriorate into the society that George Orwell described in his novel 1984? I feel like this is an interesting topic. Until now, I hann't really given much thought to the fact that the media plays such a big role in our lives today. With technology making great advances each and every day, I feel like it will only get harder to limit the screaming newsreporters.
Post a Comment