Generally there are always two sides to any story. The media has their side, primarily geared towards generating the most hype and selling the most ads, papers, ratings, or what not.
The accused generally save their side for an actual court where both sides can be presented to a jury of peers, which decide. It isnt a perfect system but it is the best one man has come up with. There MUST be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Trial by media, and trial by mob is wrong. It's a shame so many seemingly bright intelligent people forget that.
Of course that generally gets the public in a tizzy because they have only been exposed to one side of the story and are screaming for conviction and punishment before there is even a trial. All the facts and evidence will come out and I have faith a 12 person jury will render the proper verdict based on the law and the evidence presented. In the event of a guilty verdict I would assume the judge would issue a sentence also based on current law. He does have some leeway but the facts of the case should determine that. NOT MOB rule. That is a very dangerous road to travel down and pulls at the very fabric of our justice system.
Another founding principle of our justice system is it is illegal to make retroactive laws and punishments. You can't go changing a law or the punishment for breaking that law after the offense is committed. This is another protection against mob rule and mob trials. Judges should not ever make decisions on punishment based on current popular opinion.
I am sure if anyone of you were charged with a crime you would want your rights respected and to be given a fair trial. If found guilty you would also expect to get about the same sentence as someone else who did the same crime but didnt end up a tabloid event.