The manner in which the media's misuse of our legal system as entertainment almost universally fosters mistrust and anger
(PRWEB) July 15, 2011
On July 5, twenty-five-year-old Casey Anthony was found not guilty of capital murder in the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee. The murder trial was followed via media outlets by Americans across the country, intent on deciding for themselves whether or not Anthony was guilty. At the announcement of the “not guilty” verdict, protestors hit the street demanding justice for the victim, Caylee (foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record). Unfortunately, many of these protestors have caught only bits and pieces of the sensational trial, offered by media representatives who often intentionally spin their representation of facts in one way or another to suit their needs (thepilot.com/news/2011/jul/10/caseys-case-lawyers-view).
The stunning verdict was announced after eleven hours of deliberation on the part of the twelve jurors, who ultimately found Casey Anthony not guilty of murdering her daughter. Casey Anthony was also acquitted of manslaughter and aggravated abuse of a child. She was found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer (issues.cc/complaints/casey-anthony).
All Americans are entitled to their own opinions regarding the Casey Anthony trial and others like it, but no one is entitled to offer undue criticism of the difficult decision made by the jurors present throughout the entire Casey Anthony case. According to Oklahoma criminal defense attorney, Tommy Adler, with the Atkins and Markoff law firm, “The jurors in our legal system are the unpaid, unsung, and unappreciated heroes that make the engine run. Without them, our legal system would fail absolutely and immediately.”
Adler continues, “The general public who see next to none of the actual evidence or testimony in any given case have a right to their opinion, but have no right whatsoever to criticize the verdicts of those people who have put their entire lives on hold and thanklessly served their community and our legal system as jurors in difficult and lengthy cases.”
Unfortunately, it seems the media's main goal is to entice viewers to tune into their broadcast of the trial, using carefully selected soundbites to draw the interest of the majority. The media's often intentionally one-sided representation of fascinating cases like Casey Anthony's incites a “national hysteria,” according to Adler, leading the public to draw their own uninformed conclusions and contest the unimaginably difficult decisions made by the jurors.
The majority of media outlets covering the Casey Anthony trial have reported only half of the case, offering pro-prosecution commentary which has been eagerly absorbed by the American public (issues.cc/complaints/casey-anthony). Unfortunately, when the “not guilty” verdict was handed down, national criticism fell on the judicial system rather than on the shoulders of the media representatives.
As Adler states, “The United States Constitution guarantees all accused citizens a right to a public trial to protect us from the potential for tyranny of an unchecked government, not to satisfy the blood lust of the general public.” According to Adler, “The manner in which the media's misuse of our legal system as entertainment almost universally fosters mistrust and anger towards our legal system is something that troubles me deeply.” For more information about qualified OK criminal defense attorneys, visit the Oklahoma law firm's website at http://www.atkinsandmarkoff.com.