Justice must be seen to be done

Laminations

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0126/1224263119464.html

With the new courts complex and its secure entrance restricting photographers from snapping pics of convicted criminals, have we gotten our priorities backwards once again??

I think so. There has been great controversy over the protection of a witness (Jean Treacy) from the media. It appears the separate entrance is only to be used for convicted criminals as if the courts service only has a duty to the criminal and not the accused, the victims or witnesses. IMO it should be the other way around. Everyone uses the secure entrance, and no photos of anyone involved in a case until there is a ruling and conviction, after which the guilty party is escorted out the front door, no hood or jumper to protect them and the public get to see the face of crime. Other parties can face the media if they want or maintain their privacy if they choose. Some people seem more intent on denigrating witnesses, possibly putting future witnesses off giving testimony instead of demanding privacy for all until guilt has been established.

johnnyskeleton

The separate entrance is for security reasons for people held in custody pending trial or going into custody post sentence. The majority of customers in the CCJ who are in custody are liable to kick off at any moment, and clearly it isn't a good idea to have them coming in the front door.

The same situation was there in the four courts, the problem that the media are highlighting is that in the fourcourts they had to undergo a walk of shame to the prison van, but now the prison van drives in, makes its delivery and collects the latest shipments. This is outside of the media's view.

If everyone uses the secure entrance then it would mean that everyone (including witnesses) get their photos taken (as the journalists would be going in with them.

The freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial in public means that the press can take photos of whoever they can and publish them, whether this be accused, witnesses, lawyers or anybody else.

Witnesses can cover themselves with a hoodie too if they like.

It seems that what you are arguing for is an extreme form of censorship of the media. I'd be all for the media exercising a bit more restraint, but you can't put a blanket ban on them taking pictures of people who are engaged in a public trial if they appear on a public street.

The idea of parading convicted criminals outside of the courts so that everyone can get a good gawp sounds a little voyeuristic to me. At the end of the day, someone will get their picture one way or another, so putting them on display is a bit crass and totally unnecessary.

Red_Marauder

I have a real problem with the title of this thread.

Justice is being done just fine.

The media should have no hand, act or part to play in executing justice.

johnnyskeleton

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I have a real problem with the title of this thread.

Justice is being done just fine.

The media should have no hand, act or part to play in executing justice.

They should have a role - that of reporting accurately and fairly all that goes on. In reality they report on that which is scandalous or that which will stirr people's emotions i.e. that which will sell papers.

So whenever someone gets a suspended sentence it's all over the news. Whenever someone gets a sentence that's pretty much right it doesn't get reported. When someone gets off on a technicality it's reported. When someone gets off because there simply wasn't any real evidence against them nothing is said. When someone famous is charged with a minor offence it is all over the papers. When something legally important happens to some randomer, it rarely makes even the law section of the irish times.

Plastering pictures of convicted criminals over the pages of newspapers doesn't really help people understand the criminal justice system, it just gives them something to hate.