Imagine that there has been a recent rash of robberies in your community. The police have been stumped for weeks on who is responsible. The locals are getting frustrated and are demanding the problem is resolved. Then, for whatever reason, you become the prime suspect in the investigation. Eventually you are taken into custody and are to be tried in court. The local news runs a story about your arrest in connection to the robberies. They use your name and picture, so now the community knows who you are, and many are already convinced of your guilt.

Eventually you face trial and due to insufficient evidence you are found not guilty and released from custody. Many of the locals are incredulous regarding this turn of events. They insist that the courts failed, that the lack of a conviction is an injustice to the community. Some of your neighbors start to treat you differently. They give you weird looks, as do some of local shop owners around town. After some time it begins to seem like everyone in town thinks you are guilty. You start to have trouble finding work. No one seems to wants to hire you, so you start to consider moving to another town.

Then one day someone else is arrested for the robberies. The suspect was caught at the scene of the crime. Eventually the suspect faces trial and is found guilty. While the problem of the robberies has been resolved you are never truly exonerated for the crime. You end up moving anyway. It is easier that way.

This scenario is not unheard of in the United States. There have been many instances in which the court of public opinion conflicts with the court of law. While the justice system has been known to fail, it is important to remember that it is the best system of discerning the guilty from the innocent, while also ensuring that an individual's constitutional rights have not been infringed on.

The court of public opinion cannot ensure the same protection that the court of law does. This court does not require the accuser to provide evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A fair and speedy trial is replaced with a perverted version played out in the media, where reason is replaced with emotion and rhetoric. As Bruce Schneier writes for Wired, "Facts matter, but there are no standards of accuracy. The speed of the internet exacerbates this; a good story spreads faster than a bunch of facts."

There should be no doubt that the court of law is not always perfect. Innocent people get convicted, and guilty people walk free. While the court of law has been known to fail, it is not as dangerous as the court of public opinion. Our justice system is intended to be impartial, but the court of public opinion does not even pretend to hide its bias. Judgement can be passed without being burdened by providing proof. Mistakes are hardly ever remedied in this farcical justice system, and ruined reputations and careers are sometimes never repaired.

Rushing to judgement can lead to mistakes, and when someone's life and reputation is on the line, mistakes can be irreparable. Faith in the court of law may be waning, but turning to the court of public opinion for justice is a slippery slope towards losing one's own constitutional rights and the return of mob justice. Economist and political writer Thomas Sowell sums up the situation well. He writes, "A generation that jumps to conclusions on the basis of its own emotions, or succumbs to the passions or rhetoric of others, deserves to lose the freedom that depends on the rule of law."

It is in the interest of our society to restore faith in the court of law and be wary of the court of public opinion.