Has the media in US courts helped the cause of justice or hindered it?
A senior Judge in the UK is now advocating that the press is let into some UK courts, to aid the course of justice.
Sir James Munby, head of the family courts, said that without ‘the jealous vigilance of an informed media’, families will suffer irreversible wrongs.
Sir James, who is president of the Family Division of the High Court, also called for the opening up of the Court of Protection – the secretive court which settles the affairs of those who have lost the capacity to decide for themselves.
Has the US benefitted from the media being allowed into US courts and are there still some courts that the media are not allowed into?
Will this be a good idea for the UK courts to follow?
In general, the media does not promote justice, it helps destroy it.
Media is not in the business of presenting evidence or making reasoned, well thought out articles. It is in the business of selling the news and the requires sensationalism, a "hook" to stir emotions and draw people to buy the newspaper or whatever it is. And emotional responses do not produce reasoned conclusions, they produce anger, hate and a mob mentality. The antithesis of justice.
I see what you are saying wilderness, in the case of both the family court and the court of protection though there is complete secrecy is this then also a bar to true justice?
Not sure what you mean by a family court or a "court of protection".
But I'm not real concerned with the whole "justice" thing, either. Call me different or weird, but that concept has always reeked of revenge to me, and revenge generally does more harm than good. Harm to an already injured person, mind you.
So our "justice" system needs to be about training and protection, not revenge against lawbreakers. Training people how to live in our society and protecting society from those that don't learn.
So you are not in favour of victim support them Wilderness?
Part of the healing process for victims is that the criminal is locked up.
It seems the liberal thinkers don't think the victims of crime count!
If a victim thinks they have a "need" for revenge then no, I am not particularly in support of that. I repeat: revenge generally does more harm than good.
Love that liberal thing; I can't remember ever being considered a liberal!
Each case is different isn't it Wilderness, does the victim have a right to feel the need for revenge in the case of a child stealing a few sweets from his/her shop, no I don't think so. But ask me if the victim has a right to feel the need for revenge if his children are killed by a paedophile then I would have to say they have every right too.
Anyway I prefer to substitute the word revenge for punishment, should we as a society seek to punish those who wish to live outside of societies rules.
The courts you mention have no jurisdiction over the things that you mention in this post.
They are purely civil.
I know John but wilderness was on about revenge.
The courts I mentioned in the OP are shrouded in secrecy. That was the reason why I posted what Sir James Munby was proposing.
Maybe I should have explained to Wilderness that the family courts decide on family matters like whether children should be removed from their parents and that the protection courts decide whether people need protecting from their families and others.
Exactly, don't assume that Wilderness or anybody else outside the UK is familiar with our judicial system.
BTW I do think those courts should be opened up to public scrutiny. They perpetrate some of the very worst cases of child abuse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … -pace.html
I am inclined to agree with you on both counts John. Thanks.
That link wasn't the most relevant, try this one -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … state.html
Yes, I know it's the Wail but . . .
Silver, it is normal for people to want revenge; it starts at a very young age when your older sibling snatches your candy and gobbles it up.
But wanting revenge and acting on that want are two very different things - it's a part of why we have courts that you are not allowed to act. But it goes further than that, IMO, when the results of taking revenge are played out on the victim. When we lock someone away for 50 years, to forever see nothing but a jail cell, it is an immense cruelty; far more than any individual should ever enforce on another. And truthfully, how many victims would, for 50 years, find solace in gloating every day at the plight of their aggressor? Would you be comfortable being close to such a person?
So give no one revenge for their suffering; let society shoulder the burden of punishing a wrongdoer. And punishment hurts the punisher as much as the one being punished; anyone that has ever punished their children (properly) knows this all too well. It is only in the midst of great anger that anyone can enjoy punishing another - the exact time it should not be done.
I still think wanting vengeance and expecting criminals to be punished are two different things, as you say that's why we have the courts.
They most certainly are different things and that's why I say revenge is not an acceptable reason to punish. If no other reason can be found to lock a person away (or take their life) than the satisfy the victims want for revenge then they should be set free.
If there ARE other reasons (safety of the public, punishment in the hopes they will learn better) then lock them up. Without discussion from the victim as to their personal revenge, closure or anything but their personal safety.
I think we are on the same road here Wilderness.
There is a case for some re-education and help for some offenders and no hope for others.
I had a very interesting conversation with a young offender just yesterday who said he thought that if the courts would have sent him to college and made him help the victims of his crimes he may have changed his life earlier. He has now joined college and has joined a volunteer program to help the victims if crime and thinks this has helped him and possibly would help others. He still has some pretty serious views about what should happen to murderers though.
I thought that response was a little off myself.
Only conservatives see the media as promoting rabble rousing. I want everyone held accountable for their actions as public servants. Oversight by the media is one of those tools. There was a reason those wise founding fathers promoted the revolutionary idea of 'freedom of the press'. Are conservatives afraid of the free dissemination of information, or were we just to believe Richard Nixon when he said that he was not a crook?
"Only conservatives see the media as promoting rabble rousing."
That's because all liberals have chosen to live by spin rather than truth and fact. Neither wanting nor using facts, they prefer to live in their personal fantasy world where the "truth" is whatever they want it to be. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118342
There is, you know, a difference between free dissemination of information and the liberal style of free dissemination of lies and spin.
(Isn't it neat when the world is black or white, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican?)
A free press, with perspectives across the ideological and political perspective would solve that problem. You do your research and the truth can be sorted out for those looking in earnest for it. People have unsubstantiated biases about liberal opinion. We certain are familiar with rightwing spin, all that birther stuff and the like. Where does that come from? I enjoy the options of checking through a variety of perspectives of a story. I am not afraid of the availability of this.
Rabble rousing? Interesting perspective. I would have thought that more applicable to the days of pamphlateering. I would have thought those nasty conservatives viewed the media more as influence-peddlers than rabble rousers.
But to the OP's question - seems like a middle ground arrangement would be most appropriate. The transparency of coverage, but not the media circus of minute by minute video broadcast
True, GA, but in the real world, I will always feel comfortable with more media coverage rather than less, it helps to keep everybody honest. I am sure that conservatives say that the 'so called" liberal media is perverting American public opinion. But that could well be an excuse for deficits in this ideological point of view on its face. Don't dirty the laundry and there will be no need to fear about it being hanged out
That would be true if the media presented real coverage, but they don't. Remember the editing of the Zimmerman tapes to insinuate racism - our media presents news that it thinks will sell and hang the truth. Spin it, twist it, flat out lie: all that matters is does it sell.
Add in that nearly everything said anymore is actually an editorial statement and all that's left is the rabble rousing.
Again, the term 'real coverage' is matter of perspective, or what it is you are looking for or want to hear. There was that insane Fox story about the President visiting India over year ago and costing tax payers in the billions. I get that kind of stuff from Fox all of the time.
Fox News: Proud recipient of the Ted Baxter Award for excellence in journalism.
Yep. Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS and all the rest. The only difference is the slant applied, but do note that having a liberal slant is no better than a conservative one. It's still spinning the coverage and making it a spin you like does not make it either right or useful.
This is one statement where we are in total agreement
Please Credence - you're going to give me a heart attack, sitting right here at the keyboard!
Agreeing with a liberal! My friends and family both will disown me!
The media - what they report - is a reflection of what the people want.
by Susan Reid4 years ago
I just read about the virtues of the American legal system on another thread.And the inevitable rebuttal that innocent people are imprisoned falsely.I invite you to share here on experiences with our (or your --...
by Leo Starrs7 years ago
If some one killed your child/spouse/parent(s) would you seek justice or revenge?I personaly think an eye for an eye if it was premeditated or while commiting a crime but if it were an accident I would just seek...
by Susie Lehto13 months ago
"You're a Sleaze": Donald Trump called out ABC News reporter. They are sleazes when they know the facts but ignore them. Instead they chose to try and smear Trump's noble donations to charities that help...
by Mom Kat6 years ago
If a couple has joint custody and one parent decides they want to take the other to court for full - what exactly does that parent have to prove as a substantial enough reason for the courts to order the change?Is it up...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 weeks ago
and let live. These people are NOT bothering anyone, going on with their individual lives, and contributing to the community. They are fine, upstanding people. Again, why the strong animus towards this...
by My Esoteric10 months ago
The subject is the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act" which seeks to amend the federal judicial code "to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity by authorizing U.S. courts to hear cases...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.