November 6, 2006 ☼ Public Policy
This is an archived blog post from The Acorn.
License to…Hic! and Retributions point to the interview where Ram Jethmalani took on a shrill reporter who confused public opinion (and those of television channels—its self-appointed proxy) for the judicial system. Why, she wanted to know, had the veteran lawyer agreed to represent a murderer so clearly guilty and so clearly reviled?
Jethmalani tells her why. Required reading for the many who believe majority opinion can blindly negate individual rights.
Sagarika Ghose: But what makes you so convinced about the innocence of Manu Sharma?
Ram Jethmalani: I donâ€™t have to convince myself. I am only convinced that the man is entitled to a fair trial. He is entitled to the services of a good lawyer. Courts will decide and no Pressman, no editor or (television crew) will decide. [CNN-IBN]As Vivek recommends, the whole interview is worth watching (or reading).
The “liberal” media’s position on serious crime suffers from a logical inconsistency. On the one hand they argue that it is wrong to provide the best legal representation for those accused of the most serious of crimes. On the other they contend that the sorts of Mohd Afzal must be granted clemency because, among other things, they didn’t get a fair trial. This is exactly the opposite of what constitutes a just legal system, and that is to give the accused the best legal defence and then punish those found guilty. Without, of course, the accompanying media circus.
Related Link: Apollo and Sharique on how the media selects its talking heads.
© Copyright 2003-2023. Nitin Pai. All Rights Reserved.