Right to Know?

I was reading the news this morning and the article about the young mother of a missing child who committed suicide after reporter Nancy Grace's harangue of accusations really upsets me. One of the things I know about our system of justice is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. While that is the theory our press seems to believe that they have the right to be judge and jury. Nancy Grace's response to this morning's news was that it was "an extremely sad development." I would say that was the understatement of the century. No one knows for sure what happened to the woman's child but if the mother is innocent of her son's disappearance then I would say that Ms. Grace is guilty of contributing to murder.

The public's right to know has to be tempered by the individuals' right to a speedy and fair trial. Too often the press feels that they have the right to publish any and all theories in a given case regardless of whether a person's right to a fair trial is jeopardized or not. There has to be a balance.

I remember that is civics’ class that there are some systems of justice where a person has to prove they are innocent rather then justice prove they are guilty. Have we become a nation that has twisted justice around to be that perverse? Is a person automatically guilty until they prove their innocence? Is a person who makes a mistake not allowed to change and admit to the mistake and try and make restitution?

I think the press and the public who encourages them is their witch hunts need to stop and rethink what they are doing. I would rather see justice then sensationalistic "news" bites. The American system of justice is supposed to be justice tempered with mercy. How much mercy did Nancy Grace show her victim?