I’ll admit to watching CourtTV from time to time, esp. when there’s an interesting case on. For instance, I watched a lot of the trial of the Charlotte Hornets’ owner, who was accused of sexual assault.
However, a part of me thinks it’s a bit like rubber-necking: using someone’s pain as a form of entertainment. On the other hand, courtrooms are supposed to be public, and cameras are an extension of that.
So tell me what you think. Should we allow cameras in the courtroom? It’s pretty apparent that it alters the behavior of all parties. Is that good for “justice”?
(Also, anyone know the ACLU’s opinion on the matter?)
Since most people are not often on the witness stand they are nervous, addition of cameras and nervousness increases. This could mean that a witness might mis-speak and thus give false testimony without meaning to since they are concentrating on the camera rather than testifying.
Also human nature has a tendency to “ham it up” for the camera. In a jury trial this could affect the jurors perception of a witness and probably in a negative way since the witness would appear fake.
My logic tells me that trial length increases with the addition of cameras but I have no evidence of that. It just seems that everything would take longer since judges and lawyers would be more careful as they also are aware of the cameras and want to look good.
The pro side for cameras is that judges and lawyers will be less likely to “pull a fast one”. But this benefit to the defense would be offset by the prosecutor being more aggressive to look good for the people.
My opinion is that cameras should never be allowed in a courtroom. There should be reporters because we have a right, and in some respects, a need to know what’s going on. But it should not be entertainment. There shouldn’t be a media circus. People who testify in cases shouldn’t be instant celebrities.
The Supreme Court has said that cameras are ok in any court room at the judge’s discretion. Ironically, the Supremes themselves have never allowed cameras in their courtroom. Notice how the Bush/Gore trial 3 1/2 months ago only used pictures of the justices and graphics of the layout of the courtroom.
spooje, why do we have a right to reporters but not a right to cameras? Can’t television statements also claim freedom of the press? Isn’t a camera more accurate and encompassing than a group of reporters with their own slant and their own biases?
Also, consider that a camera can be used as a backup to the accuracy of a court reporter.
I do like the suggestion of freedom to only air the tapes after the trial’s conclusion, but that does interfere with an argument of the 1st amendment. How can we grant the press access to the courtroom but not grant them access to report what happens in said courtroom?
I suppose I need more info to respond. Let me ask the board this:
On Court TV, and say in th O.J. case, did the witness’s sign consent forms to have their mugs broadcasted over national TV? Did they have any say in it? Does the fact that you witness something mean you surrender your right to privacy?
Until I get an answer, I’ll just say that I don’t consider most of the ‘reporting’ that goes on in these cases to journalism, in the same sense that I do not consider The National Enquirer’ to be journalism.
Certainly there is a fine line here. As spooje points out in his second post, the witnesses do have a right to privacy. Does this outweight the public’s right to information and the press’s right to report it? The supreme court says, in general, no. Does that make it correct though?
First, I think witnesses must realize that, whatever the means the press uses to communicate, the witnesses are testifying in a public forum on the record. Their names will be recorded in legal books concerning the case and they very well could end up in the newspaper. Anyone that’s in the courtroom knows who they are and can gather information about them. In short, witnesses don’t seem to have a very substantial right to privacy while on the stand.
Secondly, do cameras affect the outcome of the trial? I’d argue rarely. Anyone can quote the OJ Simpson case as the exception, but how many other cases have enough publicity to warrant live coverage and commentary through the entire trial?
Third, are cameras a means of reporting? I think yes. Just because it doesn’t require a person there to actually report anything doesn’t mean it isn’t, or shouldn’t be, covered under the 1st ammendment. Consequently, to deny the right for a news station to use those cameras as press coverage during the trial would go against freedom of the press and deny us information.
I have long held Freedom’s view. In fact, I’d even recommend that the tape be sealed for some cooling-off period on the order of six months. I believe the tape is a useful tool for documentation, but that in sensational cases it harms the process when released immediately.
While superficially print reporting and video reporting might be considered two versions of the same thing, in real life video appears to have a much more substantial and immediate impact. I believe that substantive difference warrants sealing it for a time.
In the OJ case, it wasn’t just the witnesses that played to the camera. It was the lawyers on both sides, too. I actually managed to watch virtually none of the trial, but I heard reports about changes in clothing and hair styles that looked better on camera. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to think that they may have changed their presentation of the case to accomodate the cameras, regardless of whether it strenghtened the case for the jurors.
I agree with most everyone. There’s no reason for a camera in court. Another problem besides what has already been mentioned is that everyone who watches, feels that they are part of the jury. With OJ, there were fears near the end of riots on both sides, depending on which way the verdict went, and those fears nearly came true. I say, hold the tapes for six months after the verdict, then sell the videos to those who “have an interest in the system” (ha ha ha, give me a break) and give the money to charity or “special victims fund” or something like that. Anyone who really wants to see justice in action can go to their local courthouse any time they want and sit in. A lot of people want cameras though because they don’t want to be inconvenienced with spending time in court watching a boring case when they can sit at home and watch a celebrity on trial.
I like the idea of a cooling off period. However, the presence of cameras still alters how witnesses, lawyers, and judges act, even if they know it will be played back at a later date. And I find that disturbing. On the other hand, one could argue that were cameras always in the courtroom they would become a non-issue over time a la C-SPAN.
Also aside from the entertainment aspect of trials (it’s disturbing that people’s pain is fascinating to us, but there it is), cameras COULD help enlighten us. For example, there was a lot of public interest in the recent election. The presence of the camera would have helped us learn about our justice system AND our judicial process all at the same time. Democracy in motion, so to speak. It would have also familiarized us more with our Supreme Court justices–not a bad thing.
As you can tell, I’m completely undecided about this.
I dunno. There’s a pretty big difference between knowing that some law student is going to check out a tape six months from now for a paper he’s working on vs knowing that a sound bite from my testimony is going to going to be broadcast on CNN every half hour for the next few days.
Yes, a camera will affect some people more than others. But in my minuscule opinion, most people are going to forget the camera within a few seconds of starting their testimony (unless they perform a blooper. After all, they’re already in front of an audience. That’s traumatizing enough for many people. Just keep the camera inconspicuous and it shouldn’t be an issue for most people.
I am going to have to say I now strongly hold a position against cameras in a courtroom. I was in a courtroom for criminal cases yesterday and they had a camera in the courtroom. FYI I was there to support someone who was being sentenced on two misdemeanor charges.
The case that the camera was for is a disgusting story of child abuse which resulted in the death of a child. You’ve heard of the kind where parents chain kids to the bed, starve them, abuse too cruel for the normal person to comprehend. But in this courtroom were also those people who were charged with minor crimes.
I have seen this judge in action before and previously he was firm but fair. He was tough on those who broke probation but not harsh for those who were up for their first offense. Well those that had to go before this judge yesterday were met with a tough judge only. He did not listen to the recommendation of the probation officer. The DA was also much tougher than I had previously seen him. He in a few cases asked for more time than had previously been agreed on in the plea bargain.
Don’t get me wrong, I know the people being sentenced yesterday had committed crimes and deserved punishment, but I believe they deserved the same treatment that other criminals got who had been sentenced on days where there was no camera in the courtroom.
As one who has represented clients in the immigration “court” system (officials of the executive branch of government are authorized to act as “judges” in hearings which are legally “civil proceedings” as opposed to criminal proceedings, even though their outcome can mean life or death for the petitioner), I strongly support the use of recording devices at most trials and hearings. The abuses which occur when trials and hearings are conducted in secret, behind closed doors, FAR outweigh the abuses which occur when trials are televised. Our normal court system is immeasurably improved because our trials are public; they should be as public as possible. Witnesses who are lying may be exposed; judges who lack judicial temperament cannot hide behind their robes and gavels; incompetent attorneys likewise cannot inflict themselves on clients. I wonder what would have happened in Texas, for example, in that death-penalty trial which the defendant’s attorney apparently slept through? Furthermore, I believe that the public, especially the press, should be entitled to obtain copies of all such materials for review (at a reasonable cost). I wish I could remember who put it this way: “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”
There are a few matters which deserve a closed court. I think trials which involve testimony about sexual abuse or assault should be closed until a verdict is reached and the names of victims should be removed from transcripts, so in these limited instances, I think that audio and video tapes should not be available (unless someone is willing to pay for the extremely expensive “blue spot” technology or voice alteration that was used in William Kennedy Smith’s trial).
Although it is unreasonable and unfair to blame the victim in such cases, until things change in our society, we should protect those victims from publicity.
Testifying in public trial is one thing. Having your mug broadcast nationwide and possibly being fodder for Jay Leno and Conan O’Brian and having cameramen accost you at your home and maybe having your life disected because you happened to see something or other is another thing.
I agreed with the OJ verdict(another matter entirely) but I thought the media circus was a disgrace. It was the worst-case scenario. Were we, as a society, better served by having it live on every TV station.(I don’t know about where you lived, but here in LA, it was on 6 of the 7 regular broadcast stations). Everybody is more familiar than they ever wanted to be with Kato Cailin. Yeah, Kato was able to parlay that court appearance into a short-lived career on LA radio. But what if he had been a shy, reserved guy who wanted to maintain some privacy and some dignity?
OK, I ranting now. It’s just my opinion. But I think newspaper accounts and access to court transcripts is enough to satisfy the public’s right to know.
I personally feel that the presence of media cameras is detrimental to trial courts, although there are certainly arguments to the contrary. What I would like to see, however, is more cameras in the appellate courts. There are no witnesses and no jury, just attorneys arguing policy before several judges. Televising these arguments, or at least recording them for archival purposes, seems to me to be a good idea.
The Supreme Court already allows for audio recording of oral arguments in its court, and has for many years. I see no reason not to go one step farther and videorecord them.
After all, they’re already in front of an audience. That’s traumatizing enough for many people. Just keep the camera inconspicuous and it shouldn’t be an issue for most people.