Here, here. Without the Internet, many people that would otherwise keep their mouths shut will offer an opinion on the world.
But there is the issue of trials like the Paul Bernardo case. The entirety of the Canadian legal system is based on the accused being given a fair trial. This trial must be based on truthful evidence the jurors are presented so that they can draw their own conclusions rather than have one handed to them.
Canadian, American, British and other media voices can come up with conclusions to cases based on partial fact, incorrect fact, and sheer ignorance. When a person views such information, they cannot help but be influenced, even in a small way, by said information.
That fact has formed the basis for the standard juror blackouts during a case anywhere in Canada or the United States, and likely even in Britain and most other countries with similar legal systems. This works well for smaller profile cases, but when the media gets ahold of something as large as the Paul Bernardo murders, the information gets out to prospective jurors before they can ever be selected. This helps minimize their bias towards the accused.
Think for a moment, what would happen if the media convicted an innocent man, and the jurors had listened to them? An innocent man would be stuck behind bars, and if he was in the States, potentially on Death Row.
I may love the freedom of expression the internet gives, but I cannot in good conscience abuse this right by denying another person one of their fundamental rights.
If you can without the slightest bother, then maybe you need your head examined.
Slashdot Mirror
But there is the issue of trials like the Paul Bernardo case. The entirety of the Canadian legal system is based on the accused being given a fair trial. This trial must be based on truthful evidence the jurors are presented so that they can draw their own conclusions rather than have one handed to them.
Canadian, American, British and other media voices can come up with conclusions to cases based on partial fact, incorrect fact, and sheer ignorance. When a person views such information, they cannot help but be influenced, even in a small way, by said information.
That fact has formed the basis for the standard juror blackouts during a case anywhere in Canada or the United States, and likely even in Britain and most other countries with similar legal systems. This works well for smaller profile cases, but when the media gets ahold of something as large as the Paul Bernardo murders, the information gets out to prospective jurors before they can ever be selected. This helps minimize their bias towards the accused.
Think for a moment, what would happen if the media convicted an innocent man, and the jurors had listened to them? An innocent man would be stuck behind bars, and if he was in the States, potentially on Death Row.
I may love the freedom of expression the internet gives, but I cannot in good conscience abuse this right by denying another person one of their fundamental rights.
If you can without the slightest bother, then maybe you need your head examined.
After all, 98% of girls with Barbies at a young age are prone to fits of dislike for their figure more powerful than the average girl.