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

[TheDag]

The , shifting the goal posts, route to dismiss arguments you disagree with is weak and immature.
My response was valid. You don't have to like it.

Well if that is weak and immature what do you call your effort of changing the question because someone provided a very simple answer to your question? If that is not weak and immature then you can't call my comment that.
It is very simple. Lets follow the conversation shall we. It went like this

I believe proceedings should be broadcast. I read the headlines reporting a high profile arrest, I should be able to watch the next step that is the court proceeding.

So there we have you asking about what if you wanted to watch one specific case.

You are able to ... go to the courthouse and watch.

Here we see you receive a legitimate answer.

What's the difference if I watch through a live television feed? Especially when courthouses across the country have trials in process every single day of the typical week.

Then you reply by saying oh but hang on I want other taxpayers to pay for my choices by allowing me to sit in the comfort of my own home to see this one specific case I might want to see.

Yet you don't see that as changing the question! I believe thats the appropriate one!

Let me help you understand something about open court. A public record is available because the Constitution guarantees an open court! They are synonymous.

This in no way addresses anything I said so explains nothing. So what if they are synonymous. Still doesn't change the fact that it existed before tv was invented. Therefore tv does not determine if a court is open or not.

In countries wherein courts are closed a public record does not exist.

False. Records are easily obtained here despite no guarantee of open court.

 

[TheDag]

I don't need to know the law to see injustice. There are so many examples of injustice in the courts I really can't believe any judges aren't probably guilty of it at one time or another.

Actually by definition you do need to know the law.

As Keith rightly pointed out cameras would not help in the example you provided. You supposedly know all this information WITHOUT CAMERAS. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? You claim it is not possible to know this without cameras but you supposedly know this. Sorry that is a contradiction.

Thing is I have never advocated for cameras in private areas. No one should be filmed in their own home or other personal property. My reference to filming is in public during a government imposed event. We should always be able to watch our government, I mean the technology to do so is at hand and cheap and easy.

You said anything that happens in secret is bad. Therefore it doesn't matter if it is in a person private home or private office or govt. If in secret it is bad was your claim.

No the technology is not cheap and easy. There is installing cameras and cabling involved. Paying people to do that work and maintain them for a start. Remember in every single court in the country is your demand. That is a massive amount of money which could easily be used to help those who need medical treatment or assistance to survive

If you think the government is never out of hand go commit your felonies today and hope it is not your day.

I have never even gone close to implying the govt is never out of hand. I simply do not automatically assume they are. I also know that these problems have been picked up without television coverage so really there is no issue.

 

[TheDag]

The invention of television obviously insures more opportunity for open court.
Rather than condemn television coverage of trials you can easily avoid by turning the channel, condemn the idea of closed court proceedings instead.
Those are what threaten a free society when the accused is not allowed to be tried by a jury of their peers, before their peers .

You are missing the point. Open court existed before television and exists without television coverage. Like many here are saying why should they as taxpayers be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to set up and then money to continue operating.
Having cameras makes no difference at all as to if you get tried by a jury of your peers. Although mind you you want to be careful with juries. Often the law is vague in its definitions and it comes down to what the 12 people on the jury decide is acceptable and what isn't.
On one case I was on a jury if I had not been able to say well I would never do that but I accept it was normal behaviour in that family then the person could have gone to jail instead of being released. Only one person on the jury did the same thing as the guy so it was a case of jury not deciding what was acceptable according to what we would or wouldn't do. The jury foreman asked on our behalf what was the standards that society deemed acceptable and the judge said we were 12 members of the community and that was for us to decide.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Actually by definition you do need to know the law.

As Keith rightly pointed out cameras would not help in the example you provided. You supposedly know all this information WITHOUT CAMERAS. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? You claim it is not possible to know this without cameras but you supposedly know this. Sorry that is a contradiction.


You said anything that happens in secret is bad. Therefore it doesn't matter if it is in a person private home or private office or govt. If in secret it is bad was your claim.

No the technology is not cheap and easy. There is installing cameras and cabling involved. Paying people to do that work and maintain them for a start. Remember in every single court in the country is your demand. That is a massive amount of money which could easily be used to help those who need medical treatment or assistance to survive


I have never even gone close to implying the govt is never out of hand. I simply do not automatically assume they are. I also know that these problems have been picked up without television coverage so really there is no issue.

There are many issues. Cost is not an issue when we invade other countries, or incarcerate massive numbers of people. Cameras in all courtrooms is a great idea, what is funny is that it never occurred to me prior to the other day.

 

[Arcangl86]

There are many issues. Cost is not an issue when we invade other countries, or incarcerate massive numbers of people. Cameras in all courtrooms is a great idea, what is funny is that it never occurred to me prior to the other day.

What can having cameras do that isn't already handled by having open courtrooms and court records?

 

[aieyiamfu]

What can having cameras do that isn't already handled by having open courtrooms and court records?

They can greatly increase accessibility to the judicial process.

 

[Arcangl86]

They can greatly increase accessibility to the judicial process.

They can also turn a court room into an absolute circus.

 

[Vylo]

There should be no public recording of courtrooms unless it is a public official on trial, IMO.

 

[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?

Is it "free" for someone to be subjected to news and media comments about your innocence or guilt even before they have gone to court? if someone doesn't like the look of you and decides to dig up all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with what you are charged with or edit footage so that you look like a shifty sly person just to have something for the six o'clock news, is that what you call "freedom"?
When it comes to justice and freedom the US is without doubt the pits.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Is it "free" for someone to be subjected to news and media comments about your innocence or guilt even before they have gone to court? if someone doesn't like the look of you and decides to dig up all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with what you are charged with or edit footage so that you look like a shifty sly person just to have something for the six o'clock news, is that what you call "freedom"?
When it comes to justice and freedom the US is without doubt the pits.

No doubt, but all that nonsense already goes on.

 

[aieyiamfu]

They can also turn a court room into an absolute circus.

And that is not already the case?

 

[Arcangl86]

And that is not already the case?

Actually, no. And even if it was, would you really want to make the problem worst?

 

[aieyiamfu]

Actually, no. And even if it was, would you really want to make the problem worst?

I'm not super concerned about it, people would get used to it. It is the best way to go, get these criminals (the judges and Lawyers I mean) on tape so the world can watch, we are not China or North Korea, this is the People's Republic of Amerika.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm not super concerned about it, people would get used to it. It is the best way to go, get these criminals (the judges and Lawyers I mean) on tape so the world can watch, we are not China or North Korea, this is the People's Republic of Amerika.

You know, it is really obvious you know nothing about the legal profession. It's actually one of the most highly self regulated ones out there. For instance, I know of somebody who was not allowed to join the bar because he forgot to report that he was suspended in 5th grade and that came out in the background check. Are there corrupt lawyers and judges? Yes. But as a whole the profession is actually fairly ethical. Also, courtrooms are already open and records are already kept, so again, I do not see why you see a need for TV cameras.

 

[Robert Palase]

No doubt, but all that nonsense already goes on.

Only in America and other third world countries.
Please don't tell me America is not a third world country because it sure acts as if it is.

 

[TheDag]

There are many issues. Cost is not an issue when we invade other countries, or incarcerate massive numbers of people. Cameras in all courtrooms is a great idea, what is funny is that it never occurred to me prior to the other day.

Cost most certainly is an issue when you are saying others should pay for your choice. Next you will say the govt should pay for the TV's and cable for those wanting to watch those cases. If someone has a interest in a case they can go to the courtroom and watch the trial like they do now. They can also pay for a transcript.

Cameras in a courtroom is just another extra expenditure of money that doesn't need to be spent.

I'm not super concerned about it, people would get used to it. It is the best way to go, get these criminals (the judges and Lawyers I mean) on tape so the world can watch, we are not China or North Korea, this is the People's Republic of Amerika.

Here we go again. Claims that we apparently need cameras to prove yet you already have proof without the cameras. You have continued to refuse to address this.

Your comments saying this is not China or North Korea are pathetic attempts at distraction to be honest. Not having cameras in courtrooms does nothing at all to change if the US is like China or North Korea. For a start the press in the US can print anything they like. It doesn't have to be true and they can get away with it. This influences half the nation at least and you are worried about a few cases while you have media moguls running things. You are worried about cameras in courtrooms while politicians constantly receive money from big corporations and lobby groups and they pay more attention to lobby groups than the individuals they are supposed to be representing but that is all ok by you as long as we fix these few corrupt judges!

Of course China have very good attitudes towards transport methods that are not the most inefficient method unlike the US. They also have more open mind to medicine. Successful treatments for minor things that have been working for thousands of years are ignored by the US who would rather have people suffer or lose everything including their home to get what should be a basic human right in any civilised country.