By only writing about the evidence of Simao's testimony which supports the Crown's theory and not the defence, sways readers to one side of the argument where they will come to believe the witness, simply because the media does not report counter/contradictory evidence of the testimony.
Also, after stating the sentences and then saying, "The Crown wanted this much more," implies that the sentences were too lenient, when in reality, they were too harsh (in my opinion)! The article does not state what sentences the defence were seeking.
Three to jail in stabbing death
The three men convicted in the 2006 stabbing death of 24-year-old Red River College student Minh Hong Huynh were all handed significant prison terms Monday afternoon.
Glen Monkman, 39, was convicted by a jury last month of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing Huynh outside the former Main Street bar Club Desire on April 30, 2006. Carlos Tavares, 30, and Norris Ponce, 31, were convicted by the same jurors of manslaughter for their roles in the crime, which the Crown said involved "encouraging and assisting" Monkman.
Justice Brenda Keyser sentenced all three to jail time Monday.
Monkman was handed an automatic life sentence, as are all offenders convicted of murder. He will not be eligible for parole for 12 years, which is part way between the Crown's suggestion of 15 and the defence's preference of 10. Keyser heard the sentencing arguments earlier this month.
Tavares was given a seven-year sentence, minus two years for time served, leaving five to go.
Ponce got a four-year sentence minus two years for time served. Both of their sentences fell between the terms suggested by the Crown and defence at the sentencing hearing.
Tavares told the gallery as he was leaving court Monday that he hopes to appeal. He did not say whether he hopes to appeal his conviction or his sentence.
By the headline saying "three to death in stabbing" implies and gives the impression that all three men were involved in this attack, when that may not be true. That is not based on fact, as two men played "roles" (which I think is untrue). It also only mentions the Crown's argument of the other 2 men encouraging Monkman and does not mention the defence argument, countering that. Like the WFP article, it does not mention anything about the background lives of these offenders, the contradictions in Simao's testimony, etc. and makes it appear as if all of these men are guilty, no question about it, which is not true. There was contradictory evidence and it fails to mention that.
The Crown did not prove Tavares/Ponce guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I left a comment about this story on the Winnipeg Free Press that read: I realize that the jury system is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, but I also feel that there are many flaws in the jury system and just because a jury convicts an individual, does not make it a fact, that they committed the crime. Look at all the wrongfully convicted individuals who were also convicted by juries.
Also, from studying social psychology, know that when one person has a dominant position, others may be influenced to conform, even when they may not agree. It begs the question, is the jury really unanimous?
Something to think about.
I also believe that there are many factors which influence a jury's ultimate decision. Some could have read biased media reports or internet articles, the fact that the accuseds were in custody and in handcuffs paints the portrayal of guilt and not of innocence until proven guilty, juries have no formal training in the law and how to interpret it and apply it to the case.
If we were to assume that when a jury makes a unanimous finding of guilt, that they are always correct and the accused is guilty, there would be a lot less wrongful convictions being discovered. Juries make mistakes all the time. Just think of the wrongfully convicted individuals in Canada, who had their cases decided by juries. It happens and we cannot assume anything.