Media reporting differences between countries

It seems to me that the UK version of “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply in the USA, unless you have money. As soon as you’re arrested in the USA it’s all about going to County, taking a plea bargain and then doing a stint in prison. The very notion of actually going to trial and pleading not guilty is a foreign concept in the USA, amongst the regular folk it seems. So, your guy is guilty unless he can prove otherwise, tv show prejudice or not. For shame :(

It does seem so, trial by media rather than trial by evidence and fact

Here in Australia everything is fair game before court to name someone as a suspect, but once it goes to court, the usual suppression occurs so that a person may get a fair trial... Afterward, however, unless the courts order it so that the media supress it, then everything is fair game… There is a notable case that is currently going through the conviction phase here in Australia. He is a cardinal and you can look him up. You can find him by typing in Australian + Child molester + Cardinal fairly easily. He is the epitome of people who cannot be rehabilitated and will spend the rest of his natural life in jail. Yet, at the moment the media here in Australia can't report about him. I understand why, but he's the type you hope goes to prison and gets a pot of hot water tipped over their head.

Would I do that myself? No, but that's what the justice system is for when these guys wander out of protective custody to face the general population in prison.

Is that the guy who is Scottish and moved over there to escape justice here, I know there is an old Catholic something, that the UK are trying to extradite.
Here it's not normal for people to be named before trial it's usually just that a xx year old male or female has been charged. Quite strict reporting rules and huge penalties for the media if they break them.

No it’s the former accountant for the Vatican. I mean... supression orders exist here in Australia also... But that's if you have enough money to jump through all the hoops to get one through the courts as the public defender (should you be able to contact one under Legal Aid) is about as useful as tits on a bull unless you've commited a serious criminal offense... The UK tends to adhere to justice a lot more strictly than most other common law/case law countries (such as Australia and the United States) though.

You invented that system, we didn't.

Well Scots law is a hybrid system but has its roots in Roman law.

[quote]It does seem so, trial by media rather than trial by evidence and fact[/quote]

Huh?  The overwhelming majority of criminal cases are mundane matters with none to virtually no media.  Even when there is some, it's usually such a small mention that it would make negligible impact on the case.

I also don't see how plea bargains are at odds with the presumption of innocence.  You're still presumed innocent, and the state has to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  A plea bargain is the state saying "we're pretty sure we can prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so why don't you save us all some time and plead guilty to a less serious charge?"

I don't claim to know about the full devolution of Scottish law nor am I privy to the facts. Some things are complicated and hard to follow and aren’t regularly broadcast on television save for major events such as the Scottish referendum on independence and the current stuff about Brexit and Scotland wanting to stay in the EU at least as far as I hear from Nicola Sturgeon. While there is a large Scottish population here in Australia the local events in Scotland are very rarely covered in the media.   

We keep a long standing interest in general British media for a number of reasons not the least of which is our close ties to the commonwealth particularly when there is a conservative government in office here in Australia and because of the large British expatriate population here in Australia. As an aside also because the Privy Council was the highest court of Australia until the 1980s.

I do know how patriotic the average Scot is though and you've already beat my ears in about this before so I won't go much further into this. Its one area I'm not familiar with.

Frankie, I called a truce if you read my message on the other thread, no more ear beating I promise civilised debate of course but as I said we call time on the crap.
Zarchery, I was speaking about a specific case where a one sided documentary on a case was aired prior to trial, certain facts should not come out until trial, the presumption of innocence should always stand and to air facts in an hour long documentary and air facts in such a way as to make the accused seem more guilty than they should be, then that's just plain wrong and trial by media, cause finding an impartial jury would be tough.

We live in a digital age Stu, unfortunately the media plays hard and fast and in some countries "contempt of court" and "prejudice" isn't taken as seriously as what it should be. Unfortunately this also means that sometimes its almost impossible for someone to get a fair trial like they deserve.

In the USA the jury are often vetted prior to trial if the case has previous media attention. In very high profile cases, it's often difficult to find a jury that has not heard about it. Also if it's likely to gain a lot of attention during the trial, the jury are often sequestered. I'm not sure if this is the case here in the U.K too though.

It can be the same in the UK about the jury, but the main difference with UK is that as in the case I was originally questioning, I won't name specifics. But a documentary was aired pre trial that painted a very one sided narrative from the prosecution's position.

It's a difficult one. I would hope that anyone would be honest enough to say that they saw the documentary, therefore omitting them from jury service in the first place. Just as they would be if the already knew of the person on trial. I think a lot of it comes down to scruples.

A strong enough defence would hopefully help too! Although its meant to be that the prosecution can prove your guilt but as we all know it's often more a case of the defence having to prove their innocence.

Tighter controls on freedom of the press here would threaten democracy. So it throws up ethical and political dilemmas no matter what view you take on it.

Yeah I hear what you say, but when it was a fly on the wall documentary following the police who were investigating the crime, you would think common sense would prevail and wait till after the trial to air it. The strangest thing was that the accused was given no anonymity or protection, even though innocent at that stage yet in one scene the logo was blurred out on someone's baseball cap due to either copyright or obscenity. Ahhh as they say the laws an ass.

95% of all people will accept a plea deal rather than take a chance at a trial, and risk losing, and serving more time. The judicial system is truly broken and not very many people whether innocent or not get treated fairly.

Being treated with respect in court by judges or even by lawyers is pretty much off the table... Court really is your bullshit against their bullshit and in a lot of cases without the amount of money that the prosecutor has the defense is going to lose anyway... I mean... I've been dragged through the sewer myself and it often is easier just to take a fall than to even try to fight it. I can tell you without the money I got screwed... and charged and put on an order of good behaviour for something that was so ridiculous I don't even want to discuss it anymore... But this goes for police corruption also... They literally buried me over what should have otherwise been a simple misunderstanding regarding certain health issues...

My momma said never ask for help from police or the justice system because they'll claim they can't do anything, or try to screw you. In almost every instance I've had encounters with the police as a (largely) law-abiding citizen of my country I've found this to be true.

In Canada and the U.S., you can report as extensively on a case as you want pre-trial provided you include the caveat that it's still just a charge, not a conviction. If you say they did it before a verdict or a guilty plea then it's libel.

Once the case does make it to court, there's often a publication ban on certain things. In Canada, for example, evidence presented during a bail hearing or a preliminary hearing is usually subject to a publication ban. I can't see anything that would prevent a documentary ahead of a trial, and showing the name and image of a person, provided that person has actually been charged.