Not another Russell Brand thread . . .

. . . but one that's loosely inspired by it.

Two things have struck me when watching the News - one is about time limits on justice, and the other is about trial by media.

Years ago I read The Blue Diary, which is about a man who lives an exemplary life - he runs a volunteer fire service, and is a model citizen. He has a wife and son, and is some sort of Scout master, if memory serves. He is then found to have raped and murdered a girl many years ago, before moving to his hometown and meeting his wife. In many ways he is a different man from the rapist and murderer he used to be. The book questions whether it makes sense to go back in time and punish people for things they did when they 'were someone else'. When the crimes were uncovered and he was punished, the town was left without a fire service, the Scouts (or similar) were disbanded, and his wife and son had ruined lives.

I felt when reading it, and have since questioned, whether if someone has evidently changed their ways, there is any point in punishing the person they used to be. To do so seems more like vengeance than justice.

I'm not 100% convinced by this though. When war criminals are tracked down, I'm not sure that their new lives should count as mitigation for the terrible things they did. And now, of course, we have Russell Brand, brandishing his conversion to Christianity, and pointing out that he is cured of his propensity to be a manipulative rapist. I am absolutely unconvinced by that schtick. He more than deserves his sentence, and would deserve it if it were to be passed in 2036.

But it is the same principle. The difference, I suppose, is that the fictional character's rehabilitation came from within himself, rather than because the media were on his tail, which brings me to the 'trial by media' part of my musings.

People rightly point out that in British law we are innocent until proven guilty. I accept that, and am very aware that it is mentally very damaging to be gossiped about when you are not guilty as charged, even when there is some truth in the accusations, but the context changes things entirely. I think there should be some protection in law from malicious gossip. All the same, if there had not been the Channel 4 documentary, Brand may not have been brought to justice, and numerous women would have had to live with what happened to them knowing he's got away with it. It was the same (but different) with Phillip Schofield, and ultimately with Jimmy Saville and others - sometimes it is only when the media give victims a voice that the authorities act. Even then, when people have enough money they can get injunctions to prevent their crimes being made public, as in another case half in and half out of the public eye just now.

Again, the principle of whether it is fair that it is ok for people to be publicly accused of crimes or misconduct is the same, whether it is online gossip or celebrity scandal, and it's difficult to know where justice sits. If you/we/society/the media can't accuse people, how can those with the power to act be made to do so? We know it makes a trial more difficult if everyone has heard unquestioned testimonies beforehand, but if institutions like the BBC, the NHS or even the police are refusing to act, how can people get justice?

I don't know the answers, but I've been thinking about both of these things a lot. Can anyone help me to disentangle my thoughts?