[kwlafayette]

It seems lately that this has fallen by the wayside, and that is bad because this is a very important pillar in the rule of law. Most recently, it is that Khadr fellow, but there are many recent examples.

The court of public opinion decides a person is guilty, and that is just it.

[Craig]

The rules of war are and should be different than the law of the land.

[kwlafayette]

All I am saying is, if I am ever accused of a crime, I am hoping a judge gets to hear me out before the jury makes a decision. It seems no one cares about either facts or due process anymore. Khadr, for example, has to go through the process before his guilt can be established; but he has to go through the process, whether he comes out clean or is proven guilty.

People have divided into two camps, the he is innocent and the he is guilty camp. As i said, there have been many recent examples of this. Mulroney/Shreiber, Harper/Cadman, just to name 2.

[gc]

[FF_Canuck]

I agree that trial by media is a real problem in our times. I've seen very, very few cases where the ongoing reporting and analysis of a criminal or civil proceeding is of actual benefit to the public. Another one of those tough cases where you have to balance competing rights - in this case, the right to free speech competes with the right to a fair trial. And that at the same time that they compete, media access can be part of guaranteeing a free trial. I don't know what that ideal balance point is, but I don't think we've found it yet.

[Cool Blue]

I think in the case of Khader, it's not so much the fact of whether or not he committed murder, but rather the fact that he was an active member of Al-Queda and the Taliban.

Even if he isn't guilty of murder in this instance, there is no doubt that he was willing to murder and most likely has killed in the past.

[Sheila]

[gc]

[FascistLibertarian]

What % of people have their cases publically discussed by the media?

[Cool Blue]

[Mac]

Yes... and no...

As far as the criminal courts are concerned, the presumption of innocence is firmly intact, even more so in recent years. At this point, the "innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt" has evolved into "beyond any doubt whatsoever" and the Crown prosecutors won't even contemplate a case which isn't airtight... and even some of those get tossed for arbitrary reasons.

The "court of public opinion" is operated by the media and the public who are gullible enough to accept their nonsense. In that court, there are no rules of evidence and the verdict comes before the trial since the journalists who write the tripe are the judges.

-Mac

[Duck Tory]

Sad now that Offenders can twist the system to their own advatange case in point the young offenders act. You have no idea how many i knew when i was young manipluted the law to their advatange.

[kwlafayette]

[Habsrwfan]

[gc]