media killing judicial activities.

It is devastating to acknowledge the fact that we live in a country where the killing of a deer is a punishable offence, while the murderer of an innocent girl goes scot free!! It is a mockery of our judicial system to say the least. which seems to be blind in more ways than one and open to manipulation by the high-profiled and wealthy i guess u all know i m talkin abt jessica lal murder case it was media who helped 2 solve the case n we are sayin that media is killing judicial activities strange isn't???

"It is devastating to acknowledge the fact that we live in a country where the killing of a deer is a punishable offence, while the murderer of an innocent girl goes scot free!!"

When did this happen? Can you show me where you saw this? Either way it doesn't support your position.

Anyway, all I have to do is give one example of how the media is killing a judicial activity. Jury selection is a judicial activity. Through the media, people form a biased opinion on a crime, thus rendering them ineligible for jury duty. So the media is killing jury selection.

"It is devastating to acknowledge the fact that we live in a country where the killing of a deer is a punishable offence, while the murderer of an innocent girl goes scot free!!" it happen when manu shrama n vikas yadav were out of the jail in d trial of jessica lal murder case. this happend when matto madhumita case.

"It is devastating to acknowledge the fact that we live in a country where the killing of a deer is a punishable offence, while the murderer of an innocent girl goes scot free!!"

OK, so I found a news story (although not great coverage, it's still enough): http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

Here, it seems that the verdict was at the fault of the prosecution. The police force did a terrible job of getting witnesses. Since all evidence used must be in a court, the defendant(s) is/are "innocent until proven guilty", and the prosecution provided no solid testimonies, how can you expect the judicial system to rule in their favor?

My point about jury selection still remains uncontested.

I guess that's the debate then...

100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
100 characters