In the past few weeks there has been one man who has received more recognition from the press than Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and even the Octomom combined. This man is Phillips Markoff, the suspected "Craigslist Killer". Markoff is currently sitting in a jail cell accused of shooting and killing Julissa Bristman, and for robbing and binding another woman at a nearby location.

Markoff allegedly found these women via the website, "Craigslist," baiting and luring them to hotels through the online marketplace. On paper he does not seem to be the type of person capable of such atrocities. He is currently a med student at Boston University and engaged to be married. These facts make his story all the more readable and printable. This week, Markoff appeared on the cover of many magazines, the front of many newspapers, and was also a frequent flyer in search engines. This brings the questions, is it possible for Markoff to receive a fair trial?

The answer is no. The press is using Markoff's story to sell, hoping to bank on the "Looks May Be Deceiving" theory. He is automatically portrayed as "The Craigslist Killer." Giving these suspected violent killers a nickname makes them that much more real and horrifying. Real and horrifying makes money. As the press chastises this man, it is easy for the public to think of him as the person guilty of these crimes and members of the public are potential jurors in his trial. The important question is: Will they be unbiased?

Finding an objective jury for Markoff seems to be a mission impossible. Markoff is innocent until proven guilty. Granted, Boston police did find both of the victims' panties in Markoff's house along with a hand gun. I by no means am saying that Markoff is innocent, as a matter of fact he is probably guilty. But as guilty or innocent as he may be he is an American citizen and as a citizen he is granted the right to a fair trial. This poses yet another constitutional question: Which is more important the right to a fair trial or the freedom of the press?

The 6th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that if prosecuted for a crime, one has the right to an impartial jury. The First Amendment gives freedom to the press. Markoff's case is one that induces controversy. The press is free to print what it pleases, but what if the words on their papers impede Markoff's right to a fair trial?

This is a scenario that Markoff as well as potential jurors face as we speak. Like most political and social issues, there is no easy solution. Censoring the press would liken America to the dreaded socialist China, yet sitting back and doing nothing could potentially hinder Markoff's right to a fair trial. The only viable solution is for the press to show Markoff clemency. Although that may not be the most expedient solution from the eyes of an editor, it is the right solution.