Public right to comment on a Murder trial

There is a case going on in New Zealand about a murder of an University student by her Tutor, who stabbed her several times to death, then mutilated her body. His main defence is that she provoked him with her tirade and angry words and he is claiming 'manslaughter' instead of 'murder'.

There is a Facebook group against him, where comments are being posted which is disturbing the judiciary here.

The link is

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10583896

It is rather interesting to see the postings on the Facebook which question the defence for taking any available means under the law to get the sentence they want and at the same time to see the judiciary trying to suppress free speech.

I think both sides are entitled to their actions. It is foolish and impractical to expect the public to keep quite when a trial is going on and the proceedings are detailed in the media daily. People will have their reactions and in Facebook they have found an immediate way to describe their reactions. If the judiciary is alarmed about the effect of reading this may have on the jurors and their final decision, then the only way that can be avoided in this technological age is the sequester any jury (at least in capital crime trials) without any access to media reporting or the net. If the authorities move to shut down such discussions either directly or indirectly, then what is the difference between New Zealand and Iran or China which regularly try to control the contents on the net. The Public voice should not be suppressed. That is what Democracy is all about.

As for the defence, they should have the freedom to wriggle out using whatever legal means are possible, because that is what a 'Defence' is all about. Otherwise the Defence Attorney is not doing his job. That is also why cross-examinations and defence presentations are allowed in a trial. Even with an overwhelming evidence and sometimes even with an admission of guilt, the defence is allowed to proceed, so they can atleast argue for a lenient sentence. If in any case the Defence gets away with something which is not acceptable to the Public, then the only course is to close the loophole in future by legislative action. This defence has also called for such action in New Zealand, that is to remove the defence of provocation. But how that will pan out is another story. For the latest on that, follow the link below :

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10583823

Democracy and Fair Judiciary have to work for everyone, even the accused.

In the meantime it is interesting reading for people like me.

Update on 22/7/09

The jury has returned a verdict of Guilty. The provocation and temporary insanity pleas did not succeed. Jury proved they are wise. Otherwise it would have established a precedent that if you kill with one stab or bullet it is murder, but if you kill with multiple stabs or bullets then it is temporary insanity. Murderers would have taken to more stabbings or more bullets. Sanity prevails with the jury verdict.