Author: Muhammad Ali Safdar, Ph.D. program in Law at Friedrich Alexander Universität, 2019-2023
Editor: Danai Daisy Chirawu, Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters in Human Rights Policy & Practice (2021-2023), The University of Gothenburg, University of Deusto, University of Roehampton & The Arctic University of Norway, Bachelor of Laws (With Honours) (LLBS) (2012-2016) – the University of Zimbabwe
Abstract
This article will explore the role of the media in covering accused persons. It will elaborate on the unethical usage of media coverage during the trial and the glorification of criminals for society; further, the rights of the accused are discussed from different human rights perspectives; how media trial impacts the accused and the trial process, and finally, it will shed light on the solution to counter the media coverage of accused persons.
Introduction
A trial by the media is a continuous stream of news reports on ongoing legal matters. Such stories form an opinion on the morality and legality of the actions taken by the accused. Public opinion turns this evaluation into a sort of trial. After reporting on the events and value judgments of varying degrees of explicitness, editorials, and comments by journalists, the public views the individuals in question as either innocent or guilty.
Media coverage has severely impacted how people perceive criminal justice and accused of crimes. It is often seen as one-sided and biased. They lead to public opinion, which might be biased stereotypes rather than facts about the case. The media has been criticized for its frequent and sensationalized coverage of crime and criminals. When a person is accused of a crime, they face high public scrutiny and judgment levels. That means reputation damage can be severe even when proven innocent.
The debate about the Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence is the phrase that is used most frequently in criminal justice. A classic saying by William Blackstone known as Blackstone Formulation is “better that ten guilty escape than that one innocent person suffers.” A defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, the cornerstone of criminal law and international human rights law. Ancient society placed the highest value on this presumption of innocence. This presumption had significant significance both before and throughout the trial. However, hundreds of years later, the assumption is undermined by conflicting pre-trial publication of criminal cases. Numerous reports of local, regional, and national crime tales dominate news shows daily. These broadcasts frequently include mug shots and perp walks as well as information on the accused person, the accused person’s criminal history, and the crime itself.
Relevant International Laws on Fair Trial
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Articles 10 and 11 recognized the right to a fair trial. “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” and “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” Furthermore, article 12 deals with the right to privacy, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
The presumption of innocence is defined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as the right to a fair trial that “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” It guarantees the rights to equality before the law, a fair trial by a legally created, unbiased, and competent body, and the presumption of innocence. Additionally, it clarifies how, in a democratic society, the public and the press may be kept out of a trial entirely or partly for reasons related to morals, public safety, or public order. Only the judgment is pronounced publicly.
The question of the assumption of innocence is one that ethical guidelines and journalistic codes of ethics frequently address (Maciá, 2010). The journalist must respect this fundamental right in the news stories he produces or transmits and his viewpoints regarding ongoing criminal investigations or processes. Because a journalist’s job is to present the facts, not to make judgments, no one can be considered to have committed crimes until courts have issued a definitive ruling.
The media and the reporter, with unwavering rigour, meticulousness, certainty, and without hesitation, should uphold the assumption of innocence. It is essential to avoid interfering with the situations an accused person may go through, including being arrested, showing up in court, having the prosecution’s legality determined, having an oral hearing, and receiving a verdict. The objective is to minimize the harm from failing to fulfil his journalistic duty (when non-guilty).
Case Study
Aitana, a 3-year-old girl, passed away in Arona, Tenerife, on November 26, 2009. The medical study indicated that multiple poly traumas brought on by physical abuse, in addition to vaginal and anal injuries, were the cause of her death. The mother’s partner, Diego Pastrana, was taken into custody. He explained to the Guardia Civil officials that the accident that caused the injuries occurred at a playground for kids a few days earlier. His arrest was publicized in a formal news statement. The genuine trial and the trial by media both started simultaneously. Thousands of media rushed to criticize the accused as Diego was led away in handcuffs. The Canary Islands’ public leaders offered their lofty condemnations of disdain. Just four days later, the presumed and ultimately incorrect cause of death was disproved by the autopsy. Diego, who struggles with depression, was checked into a medical facility. A few days later, he departed the Canary Islands. A handful of media professionals scrutinized their behaviour; a few journalists expressed regret. That was all there was to it. The law and journalistic ethics agree that this type of news story should be covered in a certain way. However, how easily a reporter can embellish the truth is concerning. We can identify potential and likely failures in news reporting from various angles (Macia-Barber & Galvan-Arias, 2012).
Impact of Media Coverage on Accused
The media coverage of accused persons can affect their lives significantly. It can lead to a damaged reputation in public. It will often report on the accused person’s past, current, and future activities. Even if the accused is found not guilty, they will still have to live with this stigma forever. The media coverage of the accused person can positively impact them if it leads to repentance in public. However, there is no coming back from inadequate media coverage of an accused person, and they will be judged for the rest of their lives. There are many cases where the media coverage of an accused person has been found to violate their rights. One such instance included the man whose identity was made public by the press before he was freed after being found not guilty in the murder trial. The media coverage violated his right to privacy and made it difficult to him to get a job or move on with his life. Journalists must not violate anyone’s rights to report on their stories. Sometimes family and society isolate them, although they have proven innocent at the end of the trial. It can lead to a presumption of guilt, and in some cases, media coverage can lead to violence against the accused person. Even achieving conciliation is difficult when there is much discussion about any case because both parties must maintain the public image. It may also result in the justice system trust deficit, as someone is already proven guilty in the eyes of the public by the media, but later, he is proven innocent.
Conclusion
In the end, it has been observed that excessive streaming, biased reporting, and personal judgment of the accused lead to sensationalism and trial in the hand of public opinion. The rights of the accused may be infringed as provided under the human rights declaration and other perspectives of laws. There are several solutions to this issue, like banning unethical and self-publicized reporting and the capacity building of the criminal justice system. While reporting the case, the media’s objective should be clear to restore and rehabilitate an accused, not to ultimately deplete or isolate him from society.
Recommendations
Some measures can be taken to protect the accused person from the media trial and defamation. Firstly, it is better to use a pseudonym or an alias for the accused person to protect their identity. Secondly, to use a court-ordered publication ban publicizing in any form of media. Legislation can be used to control the media coverage of the accused person, such as by banning reporting on a person’s past criminal record or by limiting what can be published about an accused person’s family life. To combat this problem, we need to build up institutional capacity and develop an understanding of how different countries and criminal justice systems handle these cases. Because many defendants are unaware of their rights in court, pertinent information should be given to the suspects during the arrest. During the trial or until charges are filed, and the accused is found guilty, it should be forbidden to publish photographs of the accused.
References
(XXI), G. A. (n.d.). Human Rights Instruments. Retrieved from UNHR: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
COMMUNITIES, C. O. (2006). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN. Brussels: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.
Dr. Carlos Maciá-Barber, M.-Á. G.-A. (n.d.). Presumption of innocence and journalistic ethics: the Aitana case. Retrieved from https://www.revistalatinacs.org/: https://www.revistalatinacs.org/067/art/960_Getafe/16_Maciaen.html
Rights, U. D. (n.d.). UNDHR. Retrieved from UN: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
This article is written within the Academic Essay Project (AEP) organised by LAWELS. AEP aims to increase the number of quality academic writings on legal topics, encourage young lawyers to participate in academic writing, and lay the foundation of an online database on legal science. The team of legal editors and legal writers share their knowledge through high-end essays that we are publishing on our website and social media accounts for the world to read and learn from.
The articles on the LAWELS platform are not, nor are they intended to be, legal advice. You should consult a lawyer for individual advice or assessment regarding your own situation. The article only reflects the views of the author.