Anth - I agree with your stance against jury sentencing. I don't believe it is the way to go.

That being said, I resent the blame you apportionto journalists. Believe it or not, they'renot the ignorantswine towhich you allude.

Alwaysbear in mind thatjournalism isone ofthe mostrushed professions outthere. There'salways adeadline. Sometimesit's everyhour, sometimes it's daily. Journalistsare often under-resourced, andexpected to understandevery bit of complexnuance withinminutes ofbeing onthe scene. And heavenhelp themif theymake amistake.

And asfor theirunderstanding ofthose keyquestions:

1. The difference between murder andmanslaughter refers largely to intent: manslaughter is an actcarried out inhot bloodor byaccident(i.e. the term: vehicularmanslaughter). Murderhas somedegree of premeditation.

2. The separationof powers refersto theidea that thethree central areas ofpower: thejudiciary, the legislative andthe executivebe free fromone another. Ineffect, the legislature make the laws, the executive put theminto place, and the judiciary uphold / interpret them. Theexecutive and thelegislature often have a very fuzzy separation, and one couldargue that it is a very weak separation indeed, whereas thejudiciary tendsto little moreautonomous, being a communityof judgesrather than politicians. (alsosee fourthestate: media)

3. It is evidencethat is generallynot permissible (though in certain cases suchas defamationjust abouteverything goes) whichhas beengleaned simply from 'hearsay' or a sourcethat doesn'treally have any justifiable reason tobecommenting onthe matter.

4. Different levelsof the court system: at the bottom rung we have the magistratescourts, then district, thena host of specialised courts - family court, planningandenvironment court etc. Atthe other end ofthe spectrumwe havethe highcourt and the supreme court. When youlaunch an appeal you tend to climb the ladder to the next highest court.

5. The contamination ofjuries. 'sub judice contempt' is where someone has published details, or has in some way influence a jury currently presiding over a case. Thisis whyyou can'treveal certaindetails about courtcases while the casesis in action, thoughyou can generally reporton what has beensaid incourt providedit isan open court - the jurywould hearthis anyway.

6. Yes,but it tends to be very sceptical of what the media is pushing, andmore often thannot I'lltake anopposing view.

Believe it or not, most journalism courses doactually teachthis stuff, buthey,it's easier to blamethe messenger right?

Believe it or not, most journalism courses do actually teach this stuff, but hey,it's easier to blame the messenger right? (Corrected) [or were you try to beat the 350 word limit?]

Do they really teach journalist this? Do they actually impart (or try to impart) some sense of morality? I hardly concur with this load of old tripe - one only has to look to the sensationalistic print media of today to find the intrusions into private lives. or watch how 60 minutes and current affairs programmes " set up" innocent people and use entrapment and outright lies to get their story ........ You only have to listen to that pernicious parrot on one of the Sydney stations to see how low his morals are - I am sure he would be able to walk under the belly of a snake - and not take off his hat!

Journalists ..... right! As far as I'm concerned the are on a par with politicians, lawyers .... and used car salesmen - so please do not defend the indefensible!

Yes, they do teach these matters, (and yes, I was trying to beat the word limit).

Like most professions, journalism is a varied one. I too am disgusted when I see programming like Today Tonight, and it isn't fair to judge all journalists by the stroke of that brush.

Believe it or not, some actually got into the profession with good intentions.

The difficulty lies in the way the media establishment is now structured. Investigative reporting has taken a severe dive in recent years, simply put, it's too expensive. (For more on this, read Mark Day's piece in todays Australian).

More journalists are being forced to spend more time writing stories from the phone than being out in the field. It's cheaper.

Universities revel in teaching journalism graduates ethics - the students learn all about media ownership and concentration, and have a pretty good understanding of the real problems with the Australian media landscape. That being said, most of them go straight to work for one of the big players. Why? Because that's where the jobs are. They don't like it, but they have to do it to further their careers.

(That being said, some opt for the ABC or independent newspapers which are still surviving in regional areas).

Kekenidika - I'd urge you to talk to some journalists, ask their opinions on these matters before judging them. There are bad ones out there, sure. But there are good ones too, honestly trying to lift the lid on serious issues. But it's getting harder.

TRTL

Actually, mate, there are some bloody good journos out there, and thanks goodness for that. When I did journalism at the Uni of Qld back in the early 90s there was a subject on journalism law, too.

But there are also an awful lot of journos, and an awful lot of subbies, who don't really understand the legal system they're writing about.

If you don't believe me, take a good hard look at the reporting of the Big Brother "turkey slapping" incident a few months ago. Any questions of sub judice, any questions of preserving the right of the potentially accused to a fair process, went out the window. Even basic legal terminology was stuffed up. The reports were about "sexual assault" (i.e. rape) whereas on the reported facts a charge of indecent assault might have been more likely.

Anth - good point. There are the good and the bad, and that goes for all professions.

It just seems that journalists seem to cop more criticism than most, and are constantly derided. I suppose it's to be expected in a profession with such a profile.

Here's an old adage for you:

Doctors bury their mistakes.
Lawyers jail theirs.
Journalists publish them for the whole world to see.

Now the legal profession - they have managed to engineer a system which in many ways insulates them from criticism.
Unlike almost every other profession, solicitors can't be sued for gross negligence. (Barristers can).
It isn't really fair, when the stakes are so high, if you get an incompetent lawyer. No matter how catastrophically he may screw uo your case, it isn't his fault.

But the legal profession would have us believe that incompetent lawyers don't exist. Either that, or they're just protecting their way of life.

There are numerous problems with our legal system, though the solution isn't jury verdicts.

As for altering double jeopardy, the author alludes to the possibility that if we allow two trials, what's to stop more and more.

Well, here's an idea for you - judge an idea on it's merit, rather than what it 'might' lead to.

Cont'd

Cont'd

I think the idea of being able to take a trial twice (not constantly prosecuting a suspect) isn't a bad idea at all, especially if new evidence comes to light. And surely the legal profession has proven it has the wherewithal to resist change. Reform is always a long time coming (thank heaven the multiple defamation laws amongst the states are at last seeing reform).

As it stands, prosecutors charging cases where there are many offences may just choose a few, so they can go back on different charges if the first effort fails.

So we're already in a situation where some cases are in effect, repeated.
Even though the charges may technically be different, the goal is the same.

The legal profession needs periodic review by people who don't have a stake in the industry - not lawyers or those who look after lawyers (i.e. judges who are all ex lawyers).

The problem is, pretty much everybody who has knowledge of the legal system has a stake in it. But sooner or later we need to be willing to review our practices against those used in systems other than the adversarial and westminster models.