LETTER:Putting justice in jeopardy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Andrew Phillips
Sir: In your editorial "Nicole's killer is still free" (4 October) you argue that the televising of the Simpson trial may have been justified, if only because without it the "unreconstructed racism" of the Los Angeles police would "almost certainly" not have come to light. Even if one accepts that point (which I do not) it mistakes the purpose, and underestimates the inherent fallibility, of the trial process. That purpose is singular, namely to see justice done in the particular case.
That is difficult enough to achieve, and to burden any trial with secondary considerations of justice for a class (however much they may deserve it) or a cause (however meritorious) is to jeopardise justice in the case. That undermines justice generally, particularly where half the world is looking on.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Phillips
Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
(Solicitors)
London, EC1
4 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments