High profile court cases, like Mike Vick's, do you morally support the increased coverage and criticism?
It amazes me how fast, and how viciously, we as a people turn on celebrities the moment they are accused of a crime. Yes, we adore celebrities and hold them to a higher standard, but does that justify crucifying them if they do something wrong? In no way am I supporting a person that has broken federal law; I'm merely questioning the morality of excessive and unnecessary media coverage, as well as the fiery and opinionated personal criticism, that these people get by just being famous and committing a crime.
Mike Vick's recent dog-fitting incident, for example, received an all-day special on ESPN, despite lacking additional information that would warrant such coverage. Additionally, there are plenty of opinionated, and shallow, questions on Y!A that seem to attack Mike Vick as a person rather then question the legal aspect of the case:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Answers:
Morality is relative -- and not something I comment on.
From a practical standpoint, such coverage damages the integrity of the justice system, and makes it more difficult to get a fair verdict in those cases -- which makes people upset, and which ripples back to causing other problems with the rest of the justice system.
It's just another example of people substituting their emotions and biases in place of the law -- which is rarely a good thing.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: