Message from @LotheronPrime
Discord ID: 451027257545326626
does it make it right
no
^that's a good lenghty read
the writer *doesn't get it* but it's a good read
"We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt."
^ that doesn't sound like a law, tradition <> law
there's a/the law
I can see the reasoning behind hiding/protecting an accused until proven guilty
everyone has rights until proven guilty
I can too, but I, as an American, don't believe that should trample our 1A rights
well, and in America we have the problem that law is designed to prevent. The defense calling for a mistrial. Which is perhaps rightfully so.
but also, a technicality here I'll agree, I believe in this situation, the trail was over and they were going in for sentencing, I could be wrong though
i heard that too, but I think this would all be overturned by now if true
this is an issue of when two rights end up in opposition. Neither can be greater than the other, yet one must come out on top.
and we do have that situation, and mistrials are a thing, buuuut we have times were it didn't end in a mistrial, etc.. like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
freedom of speech vs freedom of a fair trial
I agree
a mistrial isn't a good solution, because then you are potentially letting someone who is very much guilty walk free
and honestly it doesn't come up THAT often to be a big issue to my knowledge
I generally thing that jurors are able to be impartial in most situations, regardless of what they hear in the media
I mean
ultimately I think innocent until proven guilty should play a big part
look at the OJ trial
It’s a complicated situation, but I seriously doubt that Tommy ranting outside a courthouse is really going to change a jury’s mind practically speaking.
^
that we can agree.
but there is spirit of the law, and letter of the law
so while the spirit of the law was probably not broken, the letter of the law technically was
and this is where we get the notion any law will be taken to its extremes
it might not change the jurys mind... but its putting some people in view of millions of people - who may turn out to just be innocent people
but prison seems unjust ... a large fine seems more appropriate (depending on the size of the outlet)
well, he already had a prison sentence
as we discussed
the prison sentence was for the same thing
I thought initially it was for his mortgage problem thing... but hes already done his time for that
this would put our 1A and 5A at odds witch each other.. but I think 1A would win out here
this really is what the supreme court is for i would think
its not so much the right to due process... its the right to live a normal life after trial if not proven guilty
ha, the us has no such right
that's the equivalent of equal opportunity of outcome and is unobtainable