On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:12:27AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > > Well, I can tell you one difference in news coverage. When a person is > accused of a crime (but before they are tried), the American system uses > the presumption of innocence, but the media print the name (and > sometimes photos) of the accused and seriously damage the reputation of > the accused and make it much more difficult for a fair trial to take > place because the public has already formed the idea that said accused > are guilty. > It sort of creates the perception (and possible the reality) that even if you are acquitted, you have already paid the heavy price. > Here, the newspapers are not allowed to print the full name, only the > initial, so they could say "Joe H." was found to be engaged in a > political debate. His statements were quite controversial and a > independent inquiry is being formed to determine if his statements led > the government to believe that he is an extremist. > > While that certainly implies guilt, my name is not slurred in the process. > True. However, I believe that the key point in balancing freedom of the press and right to privacy is that as long as an impartial jury can be found, the accused will be afforded the presumption of innocence. I believe that is why change of venue in high profile cases is so common. Of course, the US is lots bigger than the Netherlands. In recent memory, the only cases that I can think of that came close to getting nationwide media saturation were maybe the OJ Simpson case, the Menendez brothers and possible the Rodney King trial. So, while the person may in fact suffer some damage to reputation, the idea is that justice will still be carried out fairly. Personally, what bugs me is those places that ask if you have ever been accused (as opposed to convicted). I believe that many potential employers ask that now. So, all it takes is someone to accuse you to do real harm (whether or not there is any media coverage). So, let's say that you are a daycare worker. Someone accuses you of molesting a child. You may still have the presumption of innocence in court, but nothing stops your employer from immediately terminating you. Let's say that the charges are unfounded and that the case is dismissed (doesn't even go to trial). Of course, if any daycare center at which you apply in the future asks if you have ever been accused of a sex crime, or of molesting a child or anything of the like. If you answer yes, of course you won't get the job. If you answer, you will have lied to get the job. In any case, I am not sure if such things vary by jurisdiction in the US (or how it is outside the US), but that seems to me a much more real concern than the small number of people who end up getting smeared in the media. > > I will also point out that it is questionable whether the United States > should be in Iraq. To many Iraqi people, the US are the invaders. Same > can be said for Afghanistan. The Soviets tried to control Afganistan > for many years. They learned that those people will fight forever. The > United States has yet to learn that. It all boils down to a discussion > that already took place and that is whether one can force democracy by > gunpoint. Personally, I don't think so. > I don't think that the top US priorities were to force democracy at gun point. I think the point was to stabilize the region, get the bad guys and leave the place better off than when we found it. I don't think for a minute that the US leadership wants to be in either Iraq or Afghanistan any longer than it takes to do the job right. As far as Afghanistan, again I don't think the point is for the US to try and control it. I think there are too many smart people in military leadership who know the history and know that it is essentially suicide to try and "take over" Afghanistan the way the Soviets tried. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature