Jerry Sandusky, now gaining ground on Michael Jackson for "most famous accused child molester of all time" has lately been dominating much of the news, and, perhaps most distressingly, Sportscenter. The reports are alarming and stomach-turning, but, we must remember, they are designed to be so.
Charges of child molestation are arguably the most incendiary. But there is also a high margin of error, especially when years have passed since the alleged acts.
This is especially true in a high-profile case, where the media, whose job it is to deliver a product that will demand peoples' attention (Which is accomplished through sensationalizing facts, and stoking outrage by waxing on about justice and what should be done with someone who committed such heinous acts), has taken a story and "mediafied" it, packaging it for mass consumption.
However, in a court of law, there are rules about what can be said and what cannot, what evidence is admissible and what is not, and these rules are designed not for the purpose of producing scintillating stories, but for the purpose of producing fairness. No one expects the media to act any differently, however,
All that is said in order to say this: Jerry Sandusky may not be guilty. We'll stop short of saying that he "deserves" a fair trial; as an American he is entitled to one regardless of whether he deserves it. We'll stop short of admonishing people not to pass judgment until they hear all the facts in a court of law; People are free to think and judge as they wish. The point here is that Sandusky may not, in truth, be guilty, or he may be guilty of something far less serious than that of which he is accused. And the truth cannot and will not be learned through the vehicle of the mass media, which neither desires nor aspires to uncover the truth in this way.
A court of law is designed for truth uncovering, and while it doesn't necessarily work as designed, at least we know Sandusky will have a chance to confront his accusers, who we have not heard from yet, and present evidence on his own behalf, which we have not seen yet.
Jerry Sandusky, as an accused child molester, may now have but one person in the entire world advocating for him: his defense attorney. Which, for a celebrity (or prominent coach who became a celebrity solely because of the accusations), makes it particularly crucial to choose the right defense attorney.
Speaking for the accused is often difficult, and always controversial, though it shouldn't be. Criminal defense attorneys get paid to do so, and in some cases, they accept the money because they do not care; these individuals would seemingly do or say just about anything if the price were right.
But some criminal defense attorneys have chosen their profession because they believe in it. Because they know that people are falsely accused on a daily basis. That charges against innocent people are false or exaggerated, but that members of the community presume them guilty. Only someone driven internally by these core values can advocate externally in the honest and genuine way necessary to open the minds of the public and, most importantly, the jury, to the possibility of innocence.
