The Influence Of The OJ Simpson Case Trial

Introduction

Public demands coverage of courts because they only watch parliament where laws are made but they are unaware of courts where the laws are developed. Similarly, the decisions taken in courts are as important, with respect to impact, as those taken in the parliament. Simon Bucks, Sky News associate editor, argues that opening up the courts is in the public interest. "It's about democracy and being able to report the only part of the democratic system that remains closed to the television." Bob Satchwell, executive director of the newspaper industry body the Society of Editors, which is backing the broadcasters' proposals, describes it as "turning a shaft of sunlight on what happens in court” (Robinson, 2011). But some believe that people such as rape victims could be mentally disturbed by the still-watching of the cameras, attracted directly towards them by the reporters in the court. In U.S. 1930s, the case of 1935 trial of Bruno Hauptmann for kidnapping and killing the infant son of Charles Lindbergh and O. J. Simpson case trial in 1995 are popular cases that suggest media coverage should not be

People all around the world took interest in the trial. The one prominent reason that media affected the most was by making the trail a race issue. The reason behind this negative affect by news casters was mainly to gain publicity and ratings. Secondly, the media coverage may also affect the juror’s opinion by extensive media coverage, where media started publishing stories without verifying the facts. Obviously, when the juror goes home and watch news regarding the race problem, he/she might change their viewpoint due to the news being shown. (Linder, 2000). Charles J’ Ogletree Jr., professor at Harvard Law School, saw the media coverage as an annihilation of U.S. legal system. (Jr., 2005). When the verdict came in OJ’s favor, a divided population rose and made it a race