Fair trials and media trials

[Clive]

One American idea I like the sound of: elected law enforcement officials. One idea I don't like: the constant media speculation that surrounds criminal cases long before they reach court. Although it was striking how much of the UK press also ignored that convention in their coverage of the recent Ipswich murders, even before the main suspect had been charged. The amount of gossip and speculation was amazing. At one point, the background noise was so deafening that I assumed the law had been changed somewhere along the line, and I just hadn't noticed. But no, apparently it hasn't. As Telegraph columnist Nigel Farndale observes, the reporters - and the police - simply decided to play by different rules.

The curious thing about this case is that the police seem to have been as much to blame as the media. Both seem to have been confused about the rules of contempt, which, actually, are quite clear: liability applies from the moment of arrest, not from the moment a suspect is charged. Not only were the two suspects in this case identified in the press as soon as they were arrested, but their whole life stories were reported in Technicolor detail, thereby potentially prejudicing jurors against them

I've noticed that the French media also seems to get a reasonably free hand to publish all sorts of rumours before a case is formally heard. I was living in the US during the early stages of the O.J. case, and never got used to the constant barrage of "facts" emanating from news anchors and Geraldo-style talking heads. None of my American friends thought there was anything odd about it. Are they right? Does the system balance itself out in the end? For all I know, the rate of miscarriages of justice could be roughly the same in both countries. I'd love to know the answer.