In our country a court trial is going on “to get a super criminal behind bars”. At least, it looks like that. All media are giving full attention to this trial and Mr. H. is put in special, extra-secured custody. Now he is suffering heavily from a heart disease and the trial is postponed until he will be recovered, if he will get recovered. He is suspected of blackmail and self-enrichment at the cost of several millionaires in the real estate and building sectors (who didn’t seem all too clean themselves, neither, but again no proof), and of being involved in murders.
We should be ashamed to spread his portrait all over the country, mentioning his full name. We seem to forget that we live in a Western democracy in which nobody is condemned before being found guilty and crimes should be proven, not in a contest between the Prosecutor and the Lawyers, but in a process of finding the truth. But as long as we have a free press with one or two newspapers focusing more on sensation and gossip than on "being a gentleman" we have to live with this I'm afraid. If one newspaper publishes something then the other dozens must follow, as it seems.
About Me
searching the mystery in the obvious
3 comments:
We have a similar problem with this recent business in Iran. I am appalled by the whole story from start to ...not yet finished! The whole thing makes me want to cringe. The performance is not something we should be dwelling on.
I'm sure you are right about this, but there is just something about the notion of a "Supercriminal" that is extremely appealing. I take it, though, that Mr. H. is no Moriarty or Ernst Blofeld.
In the USA the public and the media seem to have embraced the notion of "guilty until proven innocent." This, of course, is the opposite of what our legal system is supposed to assume.
Post a Comment