Should cameras ever be banned in a courtroom in a "free" society?

[aieyiamfu]

I was overhearing my wife watch some true crime show. She loves them. Anyway the narrator mentioned no cameras were allowed in the courtroom, got me to thinking, is that OK in a "free" society? Are there certain situations where that would or would not be ok? As a general rule I think it is wrong to prohibit recording of court proceedings, perhaps if a minor is testifying it could be reasonable, outside of that I would have to assume the justice system does not wish to be independently recorded for some reason.

 

[nightflight]

I was overhearing my wife watch some true crime show. She loves them. Anyway the narrator mentioned no cameras were allowed in the courtroom, got me to thinking, is that OK in a "free" society? Are there certain situations where that would or would not be ok? As a general rule I think it is wrong to prohibit recording of court proceedings, perhaps if a minor is testifying it could be reasonable, outside of that I would have to assume the justice system does not wish to be independently recorded for some reason.

A family of a murder victim might not want a spectacle uploaded to YouTube.

 

[Albion]

I was overhearing my wife watch some true crime show. She loves them. Anyway the narrator mentioned no cameras were allowed in the courtroom, got me to thinking, is that OK in a "free" society? Are there certain situations where that would or would not be ok? As a general rule I think it is wrong to prohibit recording of court proceedings, perhaps if a minor is testifying it could be reasonable, outside of that I would have to assume the justice system does not wish to be independently recorded for some reason.

Personally, I don't think that everything that happens in a free society should be on the evening news. What people testify about in court can be very personal and it's not, in fact, critical that every gawker 'get off' on it. Nor do I think every job interview, immigration hearing, tax audit, or similar event conducted by a government agency is fair game for being telecast.

 

[Sophrosyne]

As a former juror on a trial I'm glad I wasn't in front of a camera all the time it would have greatly distracted... even stressed me out more than the trial itself did at the time. There are some trials where the jurors hear evidence that doesn't always get in the news and are instructed in certain ways to view evidence and if they were to pass a sentence on a trial. If some wackos out there disapproved of things there could be repercussions against widows, single parent families, elderly folks, and these could also reach violent acts especially when the trial is politicized for extreme profit by the media with some people targeting jurors during or after the trial to either try to persuade a juror to vote a certain way or retaliate against them because they were anti-etc in their perceived judgment or verdict.

 

[mark46]

When children testify, there should be no cameras. When abuse victims testify, there should be no cameras.

 

[lasthero]

I was overhearing my wife watch some true crime show. She loves them. Anyway the narrator mentioned no cameras were allowed in the courtroom, got me to thinking, is that OK in a "free" society? Are there certain situations where that would or would not be ok? As a general rule I think it is wrong to prohibit recording of court proceedings, perhaps if a minor is testifying it could be reasonable, outside of that I would have to assume the justice system does not wish to be independently recorded for some reason.

That's something that's always confused me - trials already ARE recorded, but the court stenographer.

If they're going to do that, why not just a recording device? Why not a camera? I'm not saying you release it to the public, but it would obviously be useful for reading statements back and such.

 

[Albion]

When children testify, there should be no cameras. When abuse victims testify, there should be no cameras.

Agreed, but really, are any painful or personal details that any witness is required, under oath, to talk about...to be considered something that everyone in the public has a right to watch and listen to?

 

[mark46]

Agreed, but really, are any painful or personal details that any witness is required, under oath, to talk about...to be considered something that everyone in the public has a right to watch and listen to?

I agree that there is no public RIGHT to see all testimony on television. I agree that any judge should have the discretion to clear the courtroom and allow no cameras.

However, if folks are allowed into the courtroom as visitors, then they should be allowed as TV visitors also.

 

[High Fidelity]

Frankly I don't know why cameras need to be in there at all. At least not those outside of the judicial process.

 

[RDKirk]

I was overhearing my wife watch some true crime show. She loves them. Anyway the narrator mentioned no cameras were allowed in the courtroom, got me to thinking, is that OK in a "free" society? Are there certain situations where that would or would not be ok? As a general rule I think it is wrong to prohibit recording of court proceedings, perhaps if a minor is testifying it could be reasonable, outside of that I would have to assume the justice system does not wish to be independently recorded for some reason.

It was realized through early news still and video and television experience that cameras in the courtroom tended to cause a greater disruption of protecting the rights of both the victim and the defendant than did more emotionally detached reporting of events, and may throw into question on appeal whether justice in that trial was possible because of that disruption.

AFAIK, individual judges always have the authority to permit cameras but rarely do because there is no upside to justice having cameras in the courtroom. That particular trial that he is personally responsible for is not going to be any more just with cameras present than it is with the press and a more limited public present.

 

[Robert Palase]

I was overhearing my wife watch some true crime show. She loves them. Anyway the narrator mentioned no cameras were allowed in the courtroom, got me to thinking, is that OK in a "free" society? Are there certain situations where that would or would not be ok? As a general rule I think it is wrong to prohibit recording of court proceedings, perhaps if a minor is testifying it could be reasonable, outside of that I would have to assume the justice system does not wish to be independently recorded for some reason.

Did you know that under the freedom of information act the accused is allowed to have the names and addresses of the jurors who are going to be on the jury at his trial? gang leaders can ask and will be given all the names, how good is that if they want to get someone to intimidate them?

 

[aieyiamfu]

Did you know that under the freedom of information act the accused is allowed to have the names and addresses of the jurors who are going to be on the jury at his trial? gang leaders can ask and will be given all the names, how good is that if they want to get someone to intimidate them?

I did not know that, but it seems reasonable that the information be provided. I believe all government proceedings should be utterly transparent.

 

[aieyiamfu]

A family of a murder victim might not want a spectacle uploaded to YouTube.

But all the same information may be in the paper, but if the reporter is allowed to record the proceedings there could be a place to get even better information than the evening news or newspaper. I always hate these blurbs or articles that give so little information that you can't really be sure what went on.

 

[hislegacy]

Personally, I think that until conviction, there should be no public information disseminated.

Someone who is accused of a crime is often tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and when going innocent spend the rest of their lives under the stigma.

The court system is not a spectator event. It's the law in action. A person is presumed innocent until convicted.

 

[hislegacy]

Once convicted you can make all info public. It is anyways

 

[aieyiamfu]

Personally, I think that until conviction, there should be no public information disseminated.

Someone who is accused of a crime is often tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and when going innocent spend the rest of their lives under the stigma.

The court system is not a spectator event. It's the law in action. A person is presumed innocent until convicted.

That sounds nice in theory, but the prosecution loves to get the story out there, and while they are doing that should we not be able to watch and make sure the trial is fair?

 

[aieyiamfu]

When children testify, there should be no cameras. When abuse victims testify, there should be no cameras.

I agree with children, abuse victims over 18 I don't know, seems unfair to separate them out.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Frankly I don't know why cameras need to be in there at all. At least not those outside of the judicial process.

Transparency.

 

[hislegacy]

That sounds nice in theory, but the prosecution loves to get the story out there, and while they are doing that should we not be able to watch and make sure the trial is fair?

They wouldn't be able to do that.

Would that make jury selection and the process cleaner? Would it not make for a fairer trial.

 

[blackribbon]

That's something that's always confused me - trials already ARE recorded, but the court stenographer.

If they're going to do that, why not just a recording device? Why not a camera? I'm not saying you release it to the public, but it would obviously be useful for reading statements back and such.

The camera would be focused on only one part of the room so it isn't a full experience of what is going on so isn't necessarily more truthful than a simple written account.

Freedom also includes the right to privacy and someone else's curiosity or "desire to know" doesn't trump that. If you have a vested interest in a trial, go sit in the court room. There are many private details that get disclosed in a trial that shouldn't have to displayed to the general public, especially if the person is not guilty.... Lookie-Loos do not have the right to "know" everything.