By Chloe Brussard
1994. OJ Simpson. 2022. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Almost 30 years apart but both carry so many similarities to each other when it comes to how their court cases are publicized. The cases have become more of a television reality show rather than court cases.
One of the most memorable moments from the OJ Simpson case that we might not have seen if not for the cameras in the courtroom was the famous glove moment.
"If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." The glove did not fit.
A private trial would have meant that most of the most infamous moments of the case would have only been seen by a few people. But unfortunately they were not.
This case caused a lot of controversy among the population. People thought that this was a case about race, and how the police wanted to pin the murders on him because of their racial bias, but others thought that he actually was the one who killed them.
Regardless of what actually did happen, the OJ Simpson case was a both an official court case, and also a case where the public was deciding his fate. As we know, he was acquitted of the murder charges, but that didn't mean that he still wouldn't be judged and scrutinized by the public.
Decades later, this case is still notorious for both its lack of professional forensic work and for being so widely televised that people would use this as entertainment.
Fast forward almost 30 years, we are currently experiencing the defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The actors were married for two years, and as we are finding out, a lot happened during those years.
No matter how this case ends, Amber Heard is very unlikely to find herself continuing to be an actress, between the micro-expressions caught on camera and the audio that was played in court. The streaming of the case has given people the chance to see who she truly is. No one is going to want to watch her in movies. No one wants to support someone who has been abusive towards her spouse.
These examples are just two of the many, many cases that have been televised. Maybe the outcomes would be different if they were confined to the court room. But they were not.
With court cases like these, two trials are going on. A trial with the legal system, where officials decide on consequences is much different than the trial by the public. Arguably, a trial by the public is much more damaging because no matter which way the case goes, once the public makes up their mind, it is very difficult to change it back.
In 2020, Netflix released a documentary titled Trial By Media, where they dive deep into court cases where the defendant was tried by the court and also tried by the public.
One of the episodes, titled 41 Shots, highlighted a case where one man was shot 41 times by four plain clothed police officers. And despite all the evidence collected, they were not all found not guilty. The man who was shot had no criminal record and was unarmed.
A case like this where it seems clear who was in the wrong but goes the complete opposite way.
But to pretty much sum up everything about these trials by media and trials from the media, it is to say how much public perception can alter the course of court cases, and even lives. Courts can rule as they see fit, but they can't convince people who have made up their mind about the cases.
It's a dangerous thing, trials by media. But I think the fact that we are able to see anything at all just goes to show how these court cases are not only to inform the public, but also to entertain them.
"Whoever controls the media controls the mind"
-Jim Morrison, American Singer and Songwriter
No comments:
Post a Comment