Picked-On

Warning: This is in no way a commentary on the guilt or innocence of Robert Pickton. This is a general lamentation on the media circus surrounding the trial, my problems with the way the criminal justice system works and the shady nature of the prosecution.

That having been said - In a world where there exists mountains of evidence that speaks to a persons' guilt - do we as a society really need it rebroadcasted on the front page? I don't need it, and neither do you- the only thing that requires this type of hype is the self-fulfilling media drive for sensationalism that creates the curiosity to begin with.

As a result of the 24-7 coverage, everyone becomes an expert, or so they think. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what is required in a jury of ones peers.

Open courts are a requirement of a judicial model that is based on a balanced and fair system of justice. I get that- I went to law school - it was one of the things I picked up along the way. The crafters of the rule of law requiring an accountable and open judicial process, however, did not originally envision the idea of a photograph of an accused being stapled to every tree before he was actually tried.

Imagine a world where Mr. Pickton is declared not guilty. Is there anywhere in Canada he could actually go that would allow him to live out the rest of his existence without constant harassment? The Ramseys would probably agree. As would Mr. Simpson. Yeah, I know. Sometimes the "guilty" go free to ensure an innocent man doesn't get incarcerated.

To that end, I have a solution: A media ban on the name and likenesses of ALL people who are facing a criminal prosecution. When, and if, a prosecution has begun, leave it to the Crown and Police to say what crime was committed and that someone is being tried for it - WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING ELSE. Leave it to the crown and defence to find their own witnesses. Leave it to the Judge and Jury to probe the evidence. In my opinion, only after a conviction does anyone in our society have a right to know anything about the case.

Yes, the media is a valuable tool for helping the po-po find witnesses. That is about a year before a trial. In my opinion, that should be the LAST resort, and if that is the only tool available to them to find the bad guy, I say let a judge decide if it is appropriate. Judges are required to sign warrants for the invasion of personal space now, they certainly can be a check on MASSIVE invasions of personal privacy.

There are books written about this topic, so I can't possibly give justice to all sides of the argument in a simple post - but think of it this way - how would you feel if you DIDN'T do something, and wanted the chance to clear your name in a court of law. The media vultures looking for the next headline don't care enough about the truth to bother with the consequences of their investigations. Frankly, the media does an excellent job of justifying its existence as a pillar of an open system- but they don't actually believe that - they are trying to sell commercials and everyone should know that.

Media bans work. I have sat in a court room (as a private citizen and as an articling student) of a case that was subject to a media ban. Admittedly, in the age of the internet they are harder, but that isn't a good enough reason to say we shouldn't have them. The balance of harm is obvious - a guilty man will still be punished, and an innocent one won't be punished by extraneous factors outside of the judicial system. In the interim, I can read about French Presidential candidates instead of a pig farmer.

As a society we aren't allowed to declare some one's guilt before the due process has been dutifully followed. Sure, we can comment on the veracity of evidence, and its scientific value, but who gives a fuck? Ultimately, in today's media that so taints the pool of jurors that a fair trial is all but impossible, and if someone isn't found guilty, the process is attacked as incompetent (See O.J.) and that undermines confidence in the system.

I think we can agree that given the media coverage, there is little doubt that society has already declared Mr. Pickton guilty. The Cluster-fuck of a shitstorm that will occur if he is declared not guilty, or a mistrial, will haunt the system for a long time to come. That is because John Q. Citizen doesn't understand the law or the process and will likely think - "Pig Murderer is on the streets? Man, the system sucks- I am voting Reform," when there was no need for him to know what was going on in the first place.

In my opinion, the families of his victims deserve better than this sad display. They are entitled to their say in court, and they are allowed to attend and view the proceeding. I don't need to watch them walk in and out, and they shouldn't be forced to say "no comment."

Regardless of my view of a fair system, to insure that a fair process is impossible, the Crown has decided to try Mr. Pickton for six homicides. Trust me, if they lose, they will try him of number seven to 13. And if that doesn't work, 14-18 and so on. It is a convenient way to avoid the Double Jeopardy problem. It is also a shady way of having him expose his defence and probe it, on the record, in an evidentiary fashion so that any slight variation at trial number two (if required) would create a prior inconsistent statement. For shame.