Clashes between the Right to a Free Press and the Right to a Fair Trial - Essay Example

Clashes between the Right to a Free Press (First Amendment) and the Right to a Fair Trial (Sixth Amendment)Freedom of the press has been supported by successive governments since the constitution of the United States of America was promulgated and became law. To this effect, laws have been created and amended to suit the needs of the country at different periods. Some of these amendments were made with the future in consideration while others were amended to conform to prevailing socio-political scenarios at the time. In this regard, the first amendment and the sixth amendment are some of the amendments that have been made by congress to the constitution (Downs, 1960). The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids the making of any law that would appear as respectful of a religious establishment, interfering with the freedom of exercising one’s religion, curtailing the freedom of speech of individuals, interfering with the freedom of the press and infringing on the rights of individuals to assemble peaceably. This amendment also prohibits the lobbying for a governmental compensation of grievances. Passing the House without any recorded debate, the First Amendment was adopted as one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights on the 15th of December 1791 and has been part of the law since then. At first instance, the First Amendment applied to the laws that Congress enacted, and the provisions of the First Amendment only narrowly interpreted by lawyers and lawmakers. This Amendment has contributed greatly to the expansion of democratic space in America over time, considering the fact that two hundred years since the enactment of the First Amendment the society living in America has become increasingly metropolitan, with more people from different parts of the world settling down and contributing to the large community of Americans. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the courts to expand speech rights of individuals in a series of rulings over the 20th and 21st Century (Downs, 1960). This Amendment also set precedent, overturning the English Common Law precedent that was popularly used and in cases of defamation and libel, increasing the threshold for burden of proof (New York Tomes Co. v Sullivan). The question however is: has this law been interpreted in the same manner over time and yet still remains in conformity with the changes in the society? The Sixth Amendment forms part of the American Constitution’s Bill of Rights. This Amendment addresses issues touching on criminal prosecutions. The Sixth Amendment states that the accused individual shall have the right to a public and speedy trial by a jury of the district or state where the criminal act shall have taken place, sworn to be impartial in its decisions. The accused persons shall reserve the right to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusations, the right to be confronted by the witnesses for the prosecution as well as call witnesses to testify in his favor. Most explicitly, the Sixth Amendment gives the accused person the right to legal representation in a court of law or any setup convened by the government or the courts where the accused person may need legal advice. The Sixth Amendment posits that a delay that lasts more than a year since the date of the beginning of the case is termed as presumptively prejudicial. The time that could be used to mark the beginning of a case could include the time of the first indictment or arrest, whichever came first. It is however important to note that the courts have never at any point given a specific time boundary within which a case can be concluded. This Amendment goes further to prohibit the prosecution from delaying a case in order to gain an advantage. The prosecution can only apply for the delay in a case in an effort to get a specific individual to be a witness for the prosecution. If a defendant agrees to have the delay and it works to his advantage, the defendant cannot later claim that the delay was unduly. In addition to that, the Supreme Court gave a ruling in Strunk v The US that if the court handling the review confirmed that the right of a defendant to a speedy trial was curtailed, there would be grounds for throwing the case out and terminating the indictment and the conviction overturned. The mentioning of the First and the Sixth Amendments evokes the feeling that there is a conflict of ideals. To begin with, the First Amendment provides for a free press. This means that the press is allowed to report on any issue, especially on issues of public concern. The sixth Amendment provides for an impartial jury to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused individual. By being impartial, members of the jury are expected to approach a case without any form of prejudice. The conflict is evident where the members of the jury may find it difficult to be impartial if the coverage of the press of a certain case paints the accused in a certain light. The members of the jury may approach the case with a pre-made opinion which could have an effect on the outcome of the case (Downs, 1960). The most prudent thing to do in such a case is to ban the media from highlighting an issue pending the outcome of a case. This would serve to limit the influence of media reports on decisions by jury members. The use of gag orders has been used before in American courts. However, there is no basis in law for the application of gag orders for media personalities and media houses. Most houses that follow gag orders do so voluntarily to give room for a fair trial to take place. There exists, therefore, a need for a change in law either to allow courts to place active gag orders on media houses for the duration of the trial or to restrict their reporting to mere mentioning without analysis that may contribute to formation of opinions before the jury is convened to deliberate on the guilt or innocence of a suspect. In observing human nature, it is difficult for a person to watch a news report on a crime committed and fail to have a preconceived opinion when facing the same issue as a sitting member of the jury. Prevailing upon the media to issue restrained reports not only tampers with the freedom of the media but also the right of the citizens to access of information (Downs, 1960). This is bound to raise a storm, with human rights activists. In addition, there is a danger of the story finding its way back to the media through avenues like the internet even when a gag order is put in place. The composition of the jury should be done after an intense screening process has been undertaken to determine impartiality to acceptable levels. Works Cited Downs, Robert B.. The First freedom: liberty and justice in the world of books and reading. Chicago: American Library Association, 1960. Print. "Fair Trial Issues and the First Amendment." Fair Trial Issues and the First Amendment. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. . "Free Press/Fair Trial." Free Press/Fair Trial. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. . Lurie, H. A.. "Review of the American Heritage History of the Bill of Rights." OAH Magazine of History 6.4 (1992): 73-73. Print. "Thorny 90s issues test limits of Bill of Rights." Chicago Sun-Times 15 Dec. 1991: 14. Print. Read More