Positive Outome of Media Coverage of Criminal Trials in India

CSI, Law and Order, Fox News, Making a Murderer, Nancy Grace and Cops: these shows have large audiences and high ratings, showing that western society is obsessed and mesmerized with crime and criminal activity. Crime and media go hand in hand, as the media frames crime as a major social problem, due to the lack of policy and policing certain behaviors. The media and the criminal justice system go together, like peanut butter and jelly, a sandwich of chaotic fruits and nuts. The media is quite concerned with policing, but much less about the court system, consequences, and the punishment received by the offender, devising misconceptions of the judicial processes. There are several different sociological perspectives pertaining to the media

Media coverage of news events can be disseminated to the general public in any number of different ways and media biases often “reflects certain organizational and/or professional preferences or values” (Bennett 2011, 173). In fact, Lundman (2003) points out “that journalists assess the newsworthiness of homicides occurrences using the relative frequency of particular types of murders and how well specific murder occurrences mesh with stereotypical race and gender typifications (357).” In addition, Johnson (2012) felt that the real job of media was to “create a message that…grabs public attention (62).” In other words, can the media grab the public’s attention and hold it?

The media can be an effective tool for exposing injustices in the application of criminal law, however it can also be used to create unfair bias against the alleged offender therefore, causing an imbalance between the rights of the accused and society. The media attempted to vilify Loveridge to create prejudice

“The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. “Malcom X

For a more adverse effect, the trail of Casey Anthony is a good example of how the media impacted the Criminal Justice System. Lawyer Nicholas Battaglia proposed a new term, “trail by media,” in his article for the Albany Law Review. Essentially, Battaglia proposed that the media had an adverse effect on the Casey Anthony trial by questioning certain finding of the defense, live on T.V., which swayed public opinion. Therefore, when the jury exonerated her, the public was in an outcry because they had come up with their own conclusions, or as Battaglia put it, “In a sense, this crated a “wrongful exoneration” of the defendant because the “armchair jury” had convicted her when the actual jury acquitted” (Battaglia, 2012) A perspective that I had previously not considered was the potential bias that media can represent as a result of either personal or occupational

These extreme cases of judicial misconduct are rare; but when they happen they force us to think critically about our judicial system and the important role it plays in our society. When it comes to preventing abuses

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

This paper goes over the effects the media had on the O.J. Simpson case and how the media interfered. The O.J. Simpson murder case is touted as the most televised criminal trial in history and from the second the murders were discovered there was a media frenzy. On the night of June 12, 1994 the bodies of Nicole Brown and her waiter Ronald Goldman were found outside of Nicole’s condo both stabbed to death. The suspect, former athlete, icon, and actor Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson was the main suspect of the crime. On June 16th, 1994 the LAPD pressed murder charges against him and placed a warrant for his arrest

These examples of how the media negatively impacted the Simpson murder case continued on through the most crucial parts of the case, jury selection. After the media had been talking O.J. Simpson for months and months there was a survey down of the mostly people who would believe O.J. innocent and the results came out that black women would be more likely to believe that Simpson was innocent (Linder). The ending jury pool for this case were eight out of the twelve jurors were black female. In order for anyone one be convicted there must be an unanimous decision of the twelve jurors. With those odds, O.J. Simpsons chance of receiving a fair and unbiased trial become very slim. The juror pool already greatly favored him and was a huge way why he was found not guilty even though facts suggest otherwise. Polling was done on

The problem with media is that things are left out. For instance, a video may show a cop tackling a suspect and harshly detaining them, but the video does not show what lead up to that tackle and use of force. The media also only shares the “interesting” stories which makes

The trial of the century, as the O.J. Simpson case came to be known brought the world to a standstill. The publicity before, during and after the trial proceedings was the astonishing. Pretrial publicity brought upon issues that required the application of relevant cases and the amendments of the constitution. With such a famous person as the main suspect in a murder trial the media wanted to provide as much information to the public as they possibly could. The 1st Amendment of the United States gives the media a right to gather and report information to the public. (Sager, 1994-1995) The 6th Amendment allows all persons to have a fair trial; this is a concern to the defendants, if the media is providing information to the public that

That said, a couple of casualties noticed that their exploitation happened before the presence of pen name; the names of these casualties can at present be found in old court archives. What's more, in littler groups, group individuals were frequently ready to distinguish the casualties regardless of the fact that their names were not expressly expressed in news reports. Now and again, lawyers, law requirement, or administration suppliers served as the essential purpose of contact for media request. These people surveyed the media opportunities; just going along the open doors that they thought would be of interest and advantage to the casualty. These people frequently reviewed inquiries before the meetings, and guaranteed that media work force regarded the casualty and stayed inside of the settled upon themes. The media served as a wellspring of data for a couple of casualties. One casualty, who was not in contact with criminal equity authorities, built up a cozy association with a journalist amid the absolution. This columnist served as the casualty's essential wellspring of data and furnished the casualty with customary upgrades all through the absolution process. Through this relationship, the casualty had the capacity distribute an unknown articulation in the press taking after the exemption. This casualty recognized that the capacity to give such an announcement was expected, in substantial part, to the morals of the individual correspondent; in different cases, casualties made remarks to columnists confidentially that were later included in news reports. For some casualties, the media consideration is progressing and will rhythmic movement relying upon the news cycle and other related occasions (e.g., other wrongful feelings in the media, court procedures on related case). Other contextual investigations keep on getting media consideration on the

The justice system has to be free of outside influences. A person is truly innocent until proven guilty. Part of the problem with the media is that they believe that their first amendment right allows them to trample on people 's rights to be innocent until proven in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty. In the justice system shortcuts should not be taken, and allowing the media to express their opinion as a fact it 's detrimental to our justice system.

One of the most infuriating aspects of the criminal justice system - both ours and India’s - is that we put so much weight on witness testimonies. It is absurd that one person’s account of events could be the determining factor in whether or not someone is sent to prison. Not only is it irrational to allow such testimonies to play such a pivotal role in determining the culpability of the defendant, but it is completely unfair to the defendant. Sure, some witnesses deliberately lie because they are receiving something in exchange for their statement, but plenty of other witnesses still provide false information that they believe to be true. Everyone interprets events differently. We all have different perspectives and prejudices which shape

The court can punish journalists with contempt of court in many ways. One way is for him to show a document, image, video or audio material to the public, which might interfere with the courts’ decision at a trial. Another way in which a journalist can be sentenced to contempt of court is when he / she publicises material and information that only the court has the right to know like the decision taken by the jury in the jury room. A journalist can be held in contempt of court in general if he is interfering with justice.