Tertionus wrote:It's my experience that articles are best judged on a standalone basis, rather than in an overall 'publication' basis. There are some very good articles in some very bad publication, and vice versa.
As for this case, unless they're planning to go to North Korea for the jury, a fair trial is impossible, at this point.
I agree on both points. The trial will of course have the jurisdiction changed but I'm not sure that will matter one bit.
Glaucon wrote:I agree wholeheartedly with the first linked article. The way this was hyped before the facts were known, the way people jumped to conclusions, the way people from both sides of the national US-pastime (fighting the culture war) jumped on it... is really rather disgraceful, I feel. If a fair and unbiased justice system is your goal, this whole hype highlights the 'sickness' of the system quite well.
This is where we disagree. The hype has a benefit to the system and while I'm not a fan of political figures weighing in on this issue the outrage was justified and wide spread so I would expect them to have an opinion on one side or the other rather than sticking their head in rather neutral sand. The only bright spot of that article for me was that it did mention both extremes. Each has been played out in the court of public opinion.