Trail by social media

[who can tell]

In an age of instant information and social media do you think this effects court cases and sentences. Are we influenced by social media when making up our minds if someone is guilty or not regardless of facts given?

[Fly]

Bits of information come out in court that aren't reported to the public initially.
So ideally the jury should have a clearer more informed picture than what is being reported or posted on social media.

[who can tell]

Their has been cases were social media information has been taken as fact and brought down a trail. Social networks are hot spots for example recently in Sheffield a guy was reported on 'Facebook' as hanging around a school with dog . The Police were called it was established the mans intentions were not in away intendeding harm. But people still posted they still believed he was up to something. The Police had to go on Facebook themselves and post they were satisfied that was not the case and told the poster to end any rumors.

[Fly]

Haven't you just changed the thread into 'should people ignore most of what they read on social media' ?
Saying that, most of what you read in the papers is mostly bullsh** too   

[who can tell]

Yes I think people should think for themselves not believe what they read online especially with anything like a ongoing trail.

[Old Cruser]

After Cliff Richards home was searched by Police and broadcast on TV by the BBC - he was judged by some as being guilty.
Now there are no charges Cliff is to sue the BBC -
Go Cliff Go!

They were well out of order doing what they did - and the Police were no better!