• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frisco man gets 45 years for hiding HIV infection from sex partners

What a country.
Placing a ban on newspapers reporting the circumstances and detention of a walking, talking, singing Lethal Weapon that seems to have no conscience.

Yes Zimmer, they have this thing in Germany and in many other countries.. a think called legal rights. You know the right to a fair trial is part of that.... I know it is an alien concept to American's but in many areas of Europe we actually believe and cherish this principle. That is why most courts have the legal ability to ban the media from reporting names, circumstances and so on, so not to damage the fairness of the trial.. especially if it is a jury trial. Just think if the US courts had closed off media access to the O.J. trial, the Michael Jackson trial.. just think the difference that could have made.

As for the singer .. piece of scum, but the AIDs spokeswoman has a point. The men could have just put on a freaking condom so they are to blame too. That of course does not mean she should not have pointed out her situation... she should and she will pay for her crime.
 
Ever since HIV/AIDS came into being, monogamy is looking pretty good...
People who have multiple sex partners themselves are hypocrites if they try to prosecute one that gives them an STD. They don't really know for sure where they got it.
 
Yes Zimmer, they have this thing in Germany and in many other countries.. a think called legal rights. You know the right to a fair trial is part of that.... I know it is an alien concept to American's but in many areas of Europe we actually believe and cherish this principle. That is why most courts have the legal ability to ban the media from reporting names, circumstances and so on, so not to damage the fairness of the trial.. especially if it is a jury trial. Just think if the US courts had closed off media access to the O.J. trial, the Michael Jackson trial.. just think the difference that could have made.

As for the singer .. piece of scum, but the AIDs spokeswoman has a point. The men could have just put on a freaking condom so they are to blame too. That of course does not mean she should not have pointed out her situation... she should and she will pay for her crime.

It's blowing my mind that you're trying to turn the backwards rules that exist in Germany into net positives. You don't actually think that, do you?
 
It's blowing my mind that you're trying to turn the backwards rules that exist in Germany into net positives. You don't actually think that, do you?

Think that even scum bags deserve a fair trial? Yes I do.

Releasing information about a case is just fine, but if that information can potentially hurt the defendant right to a fair trial, scum bag or not, then I damn expect the judge and the legal system to protect not only him but the system it self regardless if it happens to "hurt" the feelings of the media.

Like it or not, in the civilized world we do not have "trial by media".. we have trial by judges or/and juries and they are suppose to be impartial and free from any influence. If that means that the media and the public are denied information until a trial has a result, then so be it. Our society is built on the law, not media fuelled witch-hunts.

In the UK it is very very common to ban the media from publishing everything from names, age, and information of the case before there is a result. Same goes for many other countries. It is to protect the integrity of the legal system.
 
Think that even scum bags deserve a fair trial? Yes I do.

Releasing information about a case is just fine, but if that information can potentially hurt the defendant right to a fair trial, scum bag or not, then I damn expect the judge and the legal system to protect not only him but the system it self regardless if it happens to "hurt" the feelings of the media.

Like it or not, in the civilized world we do not have "trial by media".. we have trial by judges or/and juries and they are suppose to be impartial and free from any influence. If that means that the media and the public are denied information until a trial has a result, then so be it. Our society is built on the law, not media fuelled witch-hunts.

You're making the demonstrably false assumption that it's impossible to have both media coverage and a fair trial. Do you have any idea how jury selection works? Do you know what sequestration is?

In the UK it is very very common to ban the media from publishing everything from names, age, and information of the case before there is a result. Same goes for many other countries. It is to protect the integrity of the legal system.

lol, keep telling yourself that. It's there to protect the reputation of the important figures and corporations being sued. That's where that rule devolved from, and that's why it remains today.
 
Back
Top Bottom