It is a subject of controversy whether mass madia should cover felony offences subsequent to arrest, or whether this should be limited by law to the court record only until the verdict is available.
The proponents of limiting coverage of felony offences offer many examples in which the media prejudiced the outcome of criminal cases, despite the constitutional provision in most countries designed to guarantee the rights of criminal offenders to a fair treatment and impartial justice.
The opponents of limiting media coverage offer many examples in which the media helped to protect the rights of criminal offenders and aided the exoneration of the innocent, thereby vindicating the media’s right to the guarantee of the freedom of the press. The case for curbing the media is advocated by lawyers who take up the cudgels of criminal defendants whom they wish to be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty afterja fair trival.
They say that without some curb on prejudicial publicity, the accused may be unfairly convicted on the basis of published allegations which are not substantiated or which may have nothing to do with the crime and may have been written from the viewpoint of making stories interesting and stimulating.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The case against curbing the media is presented by newsmen who emphasise the constitutional right of freedom of the press and claim that any limit on news would interfere with justice by shielding law enforcement officers and the courts from justifiable criticism based on press reports.
Lord Chancellor Philip Hardwicke stated as early as in 1742, “Nothing is more incumbent upon the courts of justice, than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented; nor is there anything of more pernicious consequence, than to prejudice the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties before the case is finally heard”.
Lord Hardwicke’s decision in this ancient case laid the legal foundation for the present English system under which judges summarily punish for contempt of court newsmen responsible for publicizing evidence or comments which may be inadmissible at trial- that is, such material as confessions of suspects, information as to prior convictions of the accused, comments or accusations relating to past misbehaviour or immoral conduct, reports ridiculing the character of the accused, press exposes of purported evidence, or any expression of opinion concerning a pending case.
Pre-trial Curbs on the Media : The English system provides the best example of strict pre-trial curbs on the media designed to prevent the prejudicing of criminal caser. Such strictures on the dissemination of extraneous information are intended to allow the law to take its prescribed course with criminal defendants. The law strives to reduce the chances for error by prescribing certain procedures for the handling of criminal cases.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
An arrested citizen may not be forced to answer questions in connection with a crime. Before making an arrest, the police must have probable cause to believe their suspect committed the offence and, under some conditions, they must have an arrest warrant and a search warrant, if they intend to make a search. The arrested person must be given an opportunity to gain the advice of an attorney.
After the arrest, the suspect must be taken without undue delay before a committing magistrate; he must be charged with a specific offence and given a preliminary hearing. The accused must then be indicted, but only if a grand jury-or in some states, the prosecuting attorney-has found probable cause to believe him guilty. After being charged, the accused must be brought to trial within a reasonable time. These various preliminary procedures are intended to ensure that only those persons against whom there is convincing proof are brought into court.
To make the trial itself a reliable mechanism for arriving at the truth, complex rules have been devised as to who may testify, what questions may be asked by attorneys and what evidence is admissible as relevant. The defendant may not be forced to testify against himself. To give effect to the law’s presumption of innocence, the state must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt”