Responsibility of Reporters for wrongful convictions
Grits had an interesting post on a seldom mentioned factor in causes of wrongful convictions. Innocent until Reported Guilty cited two articles that suggest improved reporting can be a protection against wrongful convictions. Steve Wienberg suggested that reporting on wrongful convictions is not a bleeding heart,liberal activity. Instead, it ensures that criminals will be punished for their crimes.As we have seen with many of the exonerations, when you convict an innocent person, the real criminal remains free, and in all likelihood will continue committing crimes. If you want to get tough on crime, make sure you prosecute the right person.
Rob Warden points out that most reporting is sensationalized, and is usually directed and orchestrated by the police and prosecutors. Until recently, claims of innocence were met with outright hostility; if you were lucky, they were only met with skepticism.
Weinberg also noted something I've always known; prosecutors tend to get a free pass. They are rarely questioned, and reporters believe whatever they tell them. In contrast, many reporters treat criminal defense lawyers exactly the opposite; they don't believe what they tell them. I think the problem is with the underlying assumption most reporters have, which is shared by the general public; they assume the person is guilty, or else they wouldn't have been charged.
As with anything, you cannot generalize, because there are many good reporters. Several of the exonerations are the result of work done by investigative reporters. Led by the pioneering program at Northwestern, more journalism schools are starting innocence programs; St. Thomas in Houston is one of those programs. Reporters are also responsible for getting out the information on exonerations, and keeping it before the public.
In the end, everyone bears responsibility when the criminal justice breaks down - even reporters.
