Jason P wrote:polaris_x wrote:Jason P wrote:The Rutgers case where the gay roommate threw himself off the GW bridge and he was convicted of a hate crime. The media reported a ton of untrue stuff and created a witch-hunt. It wouldn't even had been a case without the media push and furor they created by releasing false information. Go review the facts from the trial and judge for yourself, but if that kid got convicted on a hate crime based on his past, I should probably be locked up in a super-max prison right now for my childhood (it was a simpler time).
what part of the trial and verdict do you think was problematic? ... and is it your contention the exposure of this case and media focus is the reason why the trial went as it did?
I don't think it would have been a case at all without the attention. The media reported false information and him and that girl were labeled as monsters. Bullying and homophobia are hot topics and the media jumped all over it. These two became poster-childs for those two issues. I thought they should have been locked up based on what I was told at the time.
As for the trial, how is a juror supposed to ignore the suicide? Why would they be there if it wasn't for the suicide? And based on available evidence to the public, why was he convicted as guilty? But I wasn't on the jury so I don't know for sure.
Anyway, this is for another thread entirely.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the media calling attention to an event and that leading to charges. That just means that they covered something that required attention by the police. I'm all for that, actually. If it takes the media to highlight a crime before the law gets involved, then the media is doing a good job. Many people who are getting screwed turn to the media in order to draw attention to their trouble; unfortunately, that is sometimes what it takes for a case to get the attention from the legal system that it DESERVES. That is not at all the same as the media coverage determining the outcome of a trial.
The media certainly shouldn't be distorting facts, i.e. editing phone transcripts. But that kind of thing doesn't make it into the court room. By the time it goes to court, any lies made up by the media have obviously been weeded out - the prosecution and the defense make sure of that. Not like lawyers use news reports as evidence in court!