Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Major television news outlets, especially CNN, try Sandusky on their own; yes, Sandusky should not "testify" in his own defense

The Penn State affair is definitely a case of the “media keeping them honest”, most notably the main news broadcasts of ABC and NBC, and CNN, particularly Anderson Cooper.

It’s amazing that Sandusky’s lawyer allowed the codger to talk to an interviewer at all.  On a “yes or no” question, they measured his verbosity at 17 seconds. By my understanding of the law, it certainly sounds as though he further added further evidence for a normal conviction in court.

But should the media "try" him first?  This case has become an obsession.

Do we treat the “appearance” of certain kinds of crimes differently?  Apparently we do.  I’ve talked about that on my main blog, with respect to accidental (and false) self-incrimination on the web.  It's more than "see something, say something."  Certain kinds of statements in a school environment can put school administrators in a quandary just by being ambiguous.  Sometimes, we can't afford irony.

Should we try people in the media before the courts?  And should private citizens “take the law into their own hand” when their superiors in the workplace (who are supposed to act) fail?  The law doesn’t support that.

It looks as thought McQueary really did what he should have done. He had every right to believe University and local police would follow up. If they did, they didn’t find enough.  It’s hard to explain.(Later: University and local police deny they can find a record that he reported the incident to them.)




Wikipedia attribution link for Penn State picture.

Thursday morning, a prosecutor told CNN that in child abuse cases, the testimony of the victim(s) is enough to convict.   DNA evidence is not necessary.

In 1980, I sat through a voir dire for a possible jury service in an abuse case in Dallas when I lived therem but I was not selected.

No comments: