Over the last couple of decades, legal trials as well as newsworthy events have been publicized more and more, with increasing television coverage, the boom in internet new sources, and more recently things like social media networks and most people seemingly having easy access to video cameras on cellphones.

Combine this with the dissatisfaction of people with the criminal justice system and their inefficient processes and it seems the paradigm of this Public Opinion vs. Law balance has been shifting.

Do you feel that the court of public opinion seems to hold more weight than the ruling of a court of law nowadays when it comes to the majority of peoples' opinions on the outcomes of various news events? I guess that dates back at least as far as Mandela though in a less technical age, and probably further but at a dwindling rate.

Just wondering peoples' thoughts on this increased-media-driven shift

8/22/2011 2:18:13 AM

Need someone to speak that has been inside the courtroom. I mean, if the question/issue is the influence of the public's opinion on the judicial process and outcomes. Judges, lawyers, spectators, and most importantly, jurors, are the ones needed to investigate this issue.

If you're speaking in general terms, then yes, public opinion has outweighed legal opinion for a long time, IMHO. I don't thing it's have as much influence inside the courtroom though... Casey Anthony??

8/22/2011 8:34:00 AM

I think I get what you're getting at here, and while it's a troubling notion, it's not quite at a point yet where I think justice is being hindered. I think we're putting too much stock in people's impressions of a handful of cases. The jury vetting process, for all intents and purposes, should get rid of people who might be swayed so easily.

8/22/2011 11:08:31 AM

I think people are as swayed by public opinion as much as ever, it's just that public opinion moves more quickly lately. I'm not concerned.

8/22/2011 4:08:15 PM

Yeah, the problem with our legal system isn't that there is too much human opinion being injected, it's that there isn't enough. The original idea behind a "jury of your peers" was so citizens could decide whether or not a particular law was fair or applicable on a case by case basis. Instead the system has been flipped around so that lawyers are the only ones who decide which laws or what evidence is applicable or not. The only thing juries today are allowed to do is rule yes/no based on what the exact word of the law says should be done given whatever the lawyers say can be proven. We could replace juries with robots and get the exact same results. That's why people like Casey Anthony can get away with murder.

8/22/2011 4:41:04 PM

Quote :

"Do you feel that the court of public opinion seems to hold more weight than the ruling of a court of law nowadays when it comes to the majority of peoples' opinions on the outcomes of various news events?"

It's the court of law that ends up sending you to jail, not the court of public opinion, so I would say that the actual court holds more weight.

The fact that buffoons (or worse) preside over our justice system has only become more apparent as media coverage has increased. Literally every government agent is backstopped by the belief that they're "just following the law," allowing the buck to be passed ad infinitum. No judge or jury member has to accept any moral responsibility for the human consequences of their actions, since they can either point to the language of the law or legal precedent to justify any verdict.

8/22/2011 4:52:45 PM

^*slow clap*

8/22/2011 5:09:01 PM