Trial by media

I have no doubt that you've seen the allegations being made about the late Sir Jimmy Savile in the press lately. I don't propose to lay them out here - it's easy enough to find them. His family are, needless to say, not happy about it, and I can see why.

History is littered with tales of posthumous trials. Perhaps the most infamous of them is the 'Cadaver Synod' – in January 898, Pope Stephen had the corpse of his predecessor, Formosus, dug up, propped up on a seat in court in full Papal regalia, and tried for perjury. Formosus was found guilty and stripped of his Papacy, some seven months after he'd died. (He must have been gutted.) It's one of the more bizarre episodes of post-mortem justice in history, but serves as a handy reminder of the pointlessness of trying somebody when they're already beyond punishment.

That's particularly true when that trial happens not in court, but in the media. This particular kangaroo court can be held openly as there's no possibility of the accused coming to the stand, no jury to prejudice, at least not in court. I can't understand the timing of it – surely in a case like this, it would be better to make the accusations while the subject of them is still alive? As things stand, Mr Savile cannot defend himself, he cannot be punished if he actually committed the offences alleged, and if the allegations are true then the victims must go on suffering knowing that nothing can be done to bring the perpetrator to justice.

What, then, is the point of making the allegations now? I've already heard, in discussion of this, that somehow he was regarded as above punishment because of his fame, should any allegations have been made while he lived. The alleged victims therefore felt it was either pointless or, worse, risky to speak out at the time. This strikes me as unlikely – these days fame seems to expose people to greater scrutiny, greater punishment and greater opprobrium than would be the case if they were unknown (though there will always of course be some people who believe their idols incapable of doing wrong). I can't see how his fame would have protected him, should anybody have chosen to speak out sooner – quite the opposite in fact.

It's a horrible, horrible case because now either the man's name is being dragged wrongly through the mud or, much worse, a despicable set of offences has gone completely unpunished. Pretty damn grim all round – I bet the red-tops are absolutely loving it.