Saturday, June 27, 2009

Matter of Justice

Comments on Shiney Ahuja's case is doing the rounds. Every person is giving his/her personal opinion on the case and in some ways commenting on Shiney. As usual in these kinds of cases Shiney's guilt is presumed. The media has in not so many words told the world that Shiney is guilty of transgression. He is already serving time.
Is it the job of the media to report, provide comment and pass judgments on pending cases? Where does one draw the line? In many cases celebrities just get away with murder unless there is relentless media focus. On the other hand, in the the defense of the celebrities, everyone should be treated equally. Why, when someone is well known, he/she gets extra importance and in a way stands trial twice- once in the court and more importantly much before that in the public forum. There is the issue of fair trial and presumption of innocence before the trial begins. If tomorrow Shiney is acquitted by the court, there will be an assumption of guilty anyways.
How do you resolve this dilemma without allowing the guilty among the high and mighty to get away with crime? If you have answers or views on this do comment.

1 comment:

  1. My View! Not an answer:)
    In an Issue like this,it becomes important for the media to give enough focus on the issue so that the celebrity does not get away with the crime.But the media should also take care to see that they ONLY present information to the public and not portray the celebrity in a negative light( as guilty). therefore, the media should have a balanced approach while covering such an issue,it should give enough coverage at the same time ensure that it does not run a parallel trial.An approach like this seems ethical at the same time gives fair chance to the celebrity.

    Madhura Puranik
    III JPeng