Why is it that sometimes photography is permitted in a courtroom, and other times drawings have to be done?
Is it because of noise? Surely a digital camera is quiet enough to use, no? I would guess that the drawing would be much more disruptive… Anyway, why? Huh? C’mon, you can tell me…
Hey, I was just going to ask this. What, exactly, is the use of drawings these days? What are they used for, mid or post trial?
Just as a WAG, but I suspect that sketch artists are used when the judge is presiding over a sensitive case and don’t want the appearance of the jurors and/or prosecution witnesses to be made public. If an alleged mob boss was on trial, for instance, you don’t want everyone to know who’s sitting in the jury box – some folks might try to track down their families and hold them hostage until they get a favorable verdict, for instance.
In contrast, photographs are probably allowed for cases of less important matters, like Madonna’s latest blotched boob job. 
States can decide whether or not to have cameras, but the federal courts do not allow them (and I believe it was Souter who said they would have to roll the cameras into the Supreme Court over his dead body.)
There are a few reasons given for not allowing cameras in courtrooms. I’ll give a shot at explaining the arguments for and against cameras, but I’m not advocating a position.
The Case Against Cameras
The mere presence of cameras is distracting. Whether or not they are quiet, the act of using them will inevitably cause movement that would distract the judge, the attorneys, the jury, and the witness.
The judicial system derives its authority, in large part, from the respect of the citizens. Polls consistently show that the judiciary is the most trusted branch of government. Since the courts don’t have enforcement power, they have to rely on the legitimacy they get from the people. Allowing cameras in the courtroom will cause the public to lose respect for the courts. This argument has two parts. First, people will see that most trials are not Perry Masonesque smooth running affairs with uninterrupted relevant and incisive questions and answers. They will see a lot of attorneys introducing evidence into the record for hours on end, losing their place, pausing for whatever reason, etc. Second, courts are usually impressive places with lots of wood and symbols of the power of justice through the ages. The courtrooms are deliberately designed this way so that those who enter appreciate the gravity of the situation. This, it is believed, causes people to abide by the decisions of the court. In other words, if you lose a lawsuit in a dark-paneled room with a statute of Justice and 30 foot ceilings you know you have an obligation. If you lose a lawsuit in a room that looks like the party room at Denny’s you walk away thinking the whole thing was bogus.
Finally, there is the fear that attorneys and witnesses will start playing to the cameras. This would (1) lead to style to the possible detriment of substance, and (2) be distracting.
The Case For Cameras
Even if all the above is true, the country is best served by letting the citizens see the judicial process. People will begin to doubt the legitimacy of a mysterious system because they will begin to see it as rigged.
That’s the (relatively) short version of the arguments I’ve heard.
IIRC, and this may only apply to the UK, sketch artists aren’t actually allowed to sketch whilst in the courtroom - they have to do it from memory later. Distraction is not an issue.
In Scotland, taking photographs in court is strictly forbidden. Filming has been allowed in special circumstances.
When’s the last time you saw one of those old fashioned courtrooms like they have in the movies, with the high ceilings, the oak paneling, and windows? All you ever see today are windowless, fluorescent-lit, character-free rooms with utilitarian furniture.
When I was up for jury duty. Schenectady has an old courthouse and looks pretty much like the ones in the movies.
In this UK link they banned both drawing and photography in court, but could not prevent someone producing a drawing from memory for a paper http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2000/06june/000701gt.shtml
court photographs were apparently first banned in the UK in 1925 because “…were seen as having little public benefit and the positive disadvantage that they excited prurient or morbid curiosity.”
In the OJ Simpson case the judge initially tries to ban drawing in court as well, but this was overturned on appeal
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/woverbeck/1997.htm
The one’s I’ve been in are generally pretty impressive, but it does vary according to budget priorities. I had to answer to The Man for a speeding ticket in a utilitarian room, but that might have had more to do with the fact that the county wasn’t rolling in cash and traffic court is not a priority.
If you step into a federal courthouse, the courtrooms are generally pretty darned impressive. My local county courtrooms are nice as well.
And I also forgot to answer Cat Fight’s question. Media outlets often hire artists to make sketches. You’ll often see a sketch shown on tv or put on CNN’s website. Other sketch artists actually sketch the attorneys and then try to sell the attorney the sketch.
While this is sort-of true, the courtrooms I’ve been in have all employed many devices to keep up the public trust. Flags, uniformed, statuary officials (the bailiff), the robe, the gavel, the “Judge’s quarters”, the “All rise!”, the “Honorable” appelation, etc. They make the most out of what they’re given to work with, I’d say.
The trial of the guy who was convicted of killing Charles Lindberg’s son was the start of the camera bans in court.
From what I have read the photographers really caused a lot of problems during that case.
The OJ trial has probably turned a lot of judges off to cameras in the coutroom these days.
While I can understand the reluctance of judges to permit cameras in lower courts (watching 50 moving violation cases roll through a general district court would be pretty boring anyway), I believe Supreme Court cases should be televised. Cases that wind their way to that level generally have far-reaching significance, there is no jury that could be distracted, and the arguements are limited by time. Everything about the venue lends itself to being televised.
Just my .02.
In Canada, cameras are not allowed in the trial courts, with only a few exceptions, because of concerns about disrupting the trial process.
However, all proceedings in the Supreme Court are televised, on the CPAC channel (sort of like C-SPAN?), for the reasons mentioned by plnnr - no jury, no witnesses, significance of the issues.
Of course, for the most part, the proceedings are deadly dull, unless you’re a law geek…