2008 Woodie Awards
Opinion Editorial
Seven Days op-ed jeopardizes justice
Shane Kemiss Clark - Opinion Editor
Issue date: 11/14/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but I don't care at what temperature justice is served, it just needs to be served. In the latest twist of the Michelle Gardener-Quinn story, it looks as though Seven Days wants a justice hungry community to starve.
According to Rooney's defense there is no way he can receive a fair trial because he has already been tried and convicted by the media thus tainting the potential jury pool and violating his constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury of his peers.
Everyone has a right to a fair trial, with a competent defense, but the new question in the information age is: does media influence public opinion, or does public opinion influence the media?
It is absurd to demand that the State's Attorney possess the burden of providing a jury from a tight knit community, that is both competent enough to judge the fate of a fellow man or woman, and at the same time, ignorant of community issues. However, this is exactly what Rooney's lawyers are calling for. Or is it?
Seven Days decided to come out of its proverbial shell on the Michelle Gardener-Quinn story to publish an op-ed written by an "anonymous cop." The piece was a scathing attack laden with statements proclaiming Rooney's guilt. The Burlington Free Press later released the information that it was in fact an FBI agent who wrote the article.
FBI agents have a unique position in society. Agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation uphold our highest ideals of truth and integrity. They are the men and women who are supposed to identify and bring the bad guys to justice. This gives their opinions a privileged position in society, which is why FBI agents are called to testify at trials and not the layperson. They are meant to be experts in matters of guilt and innocence.
Given the privileged status of FBI agents' opinions, the broadcasting of their personal views becomes a situation where the media has attempted to influence public opinion.
According to Rooney's defense there is no way he can receive a fair trial because he has already been tried and convicted by the media thus tainting the potential jury pool and violating his constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury of his peers.
Everyone has a right to a fair trial, with a competent defense, but the new question in the information age is: does media influence public opinion, or does public opinion influence the media?
It is absurd to demand that the State's Attorney possess the burden of providing a jury from a tight knit community, that is both competent enough to judge the fate of a fellow man or woman, and at the same time, ignorant of community issues. However, this is exactly what Rooney's lawyers are calling for. Or is it?
Seven Days decided to come out of its proverbial shell on the Michelle Gardener-Quinn story to publish an op-ed written by an "anonymous cop." The piece was a scathing attack laden with statements proclaiming Rooney's guilt. The Burlington Free Press later released the information that it was in fact an FBI agent who wrote the article.
FBI agents have a unique position in society. Agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation uphold our highest ideals of truth and integrity. They are the men and women who are supposed to identify and bring the bad guys to justice. This gives their opinions a privileged position in society, which is why FBI agents are called to testify at trials and not the layperson. They are meant to be experts in matters of guilt and innocence.
Given the privileged status of FBI agents' opinions, the broadcasting of their personal views becomes a situation where the media has attempted to influence public opinion.
Be the first to comment on this story