Jerry Sandusky and restoring the presumption of innocence
How the media can bring balance to the criminal justice system.
The podcast With the Benefit of Hindsight… looks into the 2011 Penn State scandal that led to the disgrace of football coach Joe Paterno and the conviction of his former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, for child sexual abuse.
It is from John Ziegler, who began his investigation soon after the scandal broke. He recounts his discoveries, and the podcast includes recordings of interviews he made during his investigation as well as live interviews with guests.
As of this writing, nine episodes have been released, which I understand is the midpoint of the series. Ziegler provides compelling evidence that:
The eyewitness to the "shower incident" changed his story numerous times, but based on his initial story, Paterno and Penn State administrators had no cause to believe any crime took place, and are NOT GUILTY of a coverup.
Sandusky himself was innocent of all charges.
I will not go into Ziegler's arguments here. For details, you may listen to the podcast, explore Ziegler's other work on the case, read Mark Pendegrast's The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, Chapter 5 of Malcom Gladwell's Talking to Strangers, or do your own research. I mention this scandal because I think it points to a larger issue.
Ziegler has mentioned it himself: in criminal justice cases, his bias was pro-prosecution. That's not surprising because Ziergler's a conservative. But my impression is that journalists in general, regardless of ideology, are biased in favor of the prosecution.
When they report on a press conference by cops and prosecutors about a high profile case, and then fail to follow up with their own investigation, the public is spoon-fed one side.
Yes, the media will also report what the defense attorney says. But in sex-related cases especially, one of the few recourses the defense has is to question the credibility of the accuser. Journalists, however, are disinclined to investigate the accusations themselves. They don't want to "blame the victim."
This is understandable. If the crime did take place, if the accuser is a victim, it seems cruel to question the accusation. But media reluctance to investigate criminal cases independently gives prosecutors an advantage.
When state prosecutors want to bring someone down, their resources seem infinite while the defense is only as good as the defendant can afford. When a case becomes a media firestorm, but the public mainly hears the State's version of things, it's hard to get an unbiased jury.
Yes, jury members have an intellectual understanding that the accused is "innocent until proven guilty." And they may be conscientious in holding to that presumption. But when the prosecutors tell the press that the accused is a monster, and jury members had heard very little else about the accused, they'll be inclined to accept a lower standard of "proof."
As a result, innocent people like Jerry Sandusky land in prison.
I’m not scolding the media. Journalism is a business. Its purpose is to attract readers and audiences in order to sell space to advertisers. As far as I'm concerned, they can publish or air whatever they want. If sensationalism turns a profit and "serious" journalism doesn't, what can I say? I agree with Ryen Russillo, who once said, "I am not going to tell you what to do if you have money to lose and I don't."
But I suspect a better way is possible. I believe a free press can take an adversarial stance against the powerful, against The State, and still turn a profit.
Establish a narrative that prosecutors care more about getting convictions than they care about truth or justice. Assign reporters to investigate every statement from the police and prosecutors and poke holes in their claims.
In high-profile cases involving members of large organizations (such as universities, Hollywood studios, or the Catholic Church.) ask if there is something else going on besides getting justice for the alleged victim: Who benefits if the defendant is convicted?
INVESTIGATE!
Before the trial, cast doubt on prosecution claims every step of the way.
Imagine a respectable media outlet posting the headline: "Inconsistencies in DA.'s latest statement." Or a less-respectable outlet's headline: "The DA lied."
Wouldn't these get views? Ratings? Advertising revenue?
To restore balance in the criminal justice system,"innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't be a slogan, but a very real presumption of the public and, especially, the jury that is drawn from the public. The State's prosecutors must enter the trial believing the deck is stacked against them.
If their evidence truly is compelling, they shouldn't be worried about it.
James Leroy Wilson writes from Nebraska. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. If you find value in his articles, your support through Paypal helps keep him going. Permission to reprint is granted with attribution. You may contact him for your writing, editing, and research needs: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.