American court cases are sometimes televised, and television pictures are taken in the courtroom. However, I have never seen a British court case on television. They always have drawings of the trial. It seems that iit is “illegal” to film in a courtroom. Why is this permitted in the United States and not in the UK?
Yes, it is illegal to televise or photograph court cases in England and Wales. The original statute actually predated the invention of television and was directed against photography but this was subsequently interpreted as applying to TV as well. (Scotland is slightly different, in that this was never legislated against, but, apart from a handful of exceptions, the Scottish courts have never allowed cameras in.) The usual argument against televised court cases is that the cameras would be a distraction. From a UK perspective, too many American cases seem no more than media circuses.
IIRC, the rules in the USA vary from state to state and not all states permit cases to be televised, but no doubt a US Doper will be along in a moment (or at least once they begin to wake up later this morning) to clarify this.
They were used on an experimental basis in a juvenile court in Scotland, IIRC. I remember seeing a tape of the judge telling some teenage hooligan to “stand up when I’m talking talking to you”.
As in those parts of the US where it’s not allowed, the fear is that filming will turn a trial into a show. The OJ Simpson trial was a public spectacle, and the lawyers’ tactics and arguably the course of justice were probably warped as a result. Should a witness - a bystander in many cases - be forced to appear on prime time TV? It must be nerve-wracking just to stand up in front of the jury and judge, let alone knowing you’re on the news.
There is a “people have a right to know” argument. IMO, it tends to mean “TV stations have a right to pull viewers in and sell advertising”.
There’s also the argument that jury members and witnesses have a right to privacy, especially if they are not too keen on being there in the first place. Their personal safety might also be depend on their anonymity.
I’m in agreement with the others. The risk is that the trial becomes a show for the cameras, solicitors take on the case for the publicity, witnesses wave to their mothers at home, etc… Judges don’t like that sort of thing.
The latest method on UK TV is to take pictures of people arriving outside the court, then digitally place the faces on sketches taken inside. The end result kind of looks like South Park to me.
Australia has the same blanket ban on TV cameras as does Britain.
Any images from inside that are broadcast are purely artist sketches - no digitally pasted faces for us yet. We are more likely to get pixelated faces, because of supression orders issued by judges.
Morning all. US Doper prav reporting for duty.
APB is right, it does vary from state to state, and from judge to judge. In 1965 famed Texas wheeler-dealer Billie Sol Estes had his criminal conviction thrown out by SCOTUS after it was determined the presence of cameras in the courtroom denied him his right to a fair trial under the sixth amendment. Since then in-court camera use has been looked on disfavorably, although this is changing. Some states still maintain outright bans, but quite a few leave it up to local rules and individual judges. For example, the O.J. Simpson trial was televised, but his civil trial wasn’t
Um…make that the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s still early.
[Michael Caine voice]Not a lotta people know this[/Michael Caine voice], but the artists’ sketches they show on the news aren’t made in the court room itself (in the UK that is). The artist is only allowed to make written notes, and dash off the sketch from memory outside.
Here’s a story from the BBC’s site that confirms that, and adds some other relevant stuff.
Pretty sure that cameras are not allowed in Canadian courts either. At least i can’t recall any video from court only the hand drawn sketches.