To quote some random idiot I ran into at the supermarket:
Yikes! I’m having a hard time believing that they are guilty of anything, but I haven’t been following as much.
*engage rant mode*
It’s a matter for the public prosecutor to investigate and see whether there is a case to answer. Then and only then, it will be a case for a court to decide.
It is not for people to read in the paper and then decide in some way for themselves the innocence or guilt of the people accused. That is called trial by media and something we can well live without. Particularly if we want our court systems to actually work. Yes we need to respect the process if it is to maintain any standard of natural justice.
Yes it sells dailies and television ‘current affairs’ show hold sick sms and phone in polls, dial xxxyyy if you think they did it or yyyxxx if you think they didn’t.
We’ll tell you the ‘decision’ after the break.
Give me a break.
You know I used the term ‘natural justice’ before, it means that victims should have their complaints taken seriously and not be subjected to character assassination and it also means that accused persons are tried speedily and by a COMPETENT court. The way the media presents crap for daily consumption and disposal, denies many people who have stood accused access to natural justice.
By the time many cases come to court the media saturation means ye canne find a jury that hasn’t already made up it’s mind about the guilt or innocence of the accused.
