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

[blackribbon]

I very much enjoyed the old CourtTV show when it ran on cable. Then it became a Net subscription thing without all the commercials, which was great for live court coverage. Then it all went away .

I think camera's should always be allowed in a court. If children or sex abuse survivors testify the camera can simply turn to the prosecutor or the defense when they're asking questions. Keeping those type witness out of camera range.

Your words. Sounds like you were watching it for entertainment. And television coverage is not the same as "open court". It is a private enterprise where someone makes a profit and it cost money to view (in most cases).

 

[blackribbon]

Again you are totally missing the point, first of all I have no intention of watching any legal proceeding from beginning to end or probably at all. Legal proceedings tend to be just a little less exiting than watching paint dry. It needs to be available to anyone in the public, there are advocates out there that can do something with it.

If you don't watch the entire proceedings, HOW on earth can you determine that some impropriety has been done? The issue may have been addressed in the time when you weren't watching?

And my point remains...the advocates can still sit in the court room and read the written transcripts. No camera necessary.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Your words. Sounds like you were watching it for entertainment. And television coverage is not the same as "open court". It is a private enterprise where someone makes a profit and it cost money to view (in most cases).

Watching court for entertainment is not somehow bad. I can't imagine doing it but some people probably get a kick out of it.

 

[Four Angels Standing]

Your words. Sounds like you were watching it for entertainment. And television coverage is not the same as "open court". It is a private enterprise where someone makes a profit and it cost money to view (in most cases).

I wasn't watching to be entertained.
Television coverage of an open court proceeding is just that.

 

[aieyiamfu]

If you don't watch the entire proceedings, HOW on earth can you determine that some impropriety has been done? The issue may have been addressed in the time when you weren't watching?

And my point remains...the advocates can still sit in the court room and read the written transcripts. No camera necessary.

You can't watch proceedings from 10 different jurisdictions in a day by going to proceedings, and they are not recorded for posterity.

 

[blackribbon]

You can't watch proceedings from 10 different jurisdictions in a day by going to proceedings, and they are not recorded for posterity.

And??? your point is...what can't be access via the written word that requires cameras?

 

[blackribbon]

Watching court for entertainment is not somehow bad. I can't imagine doing it but some people probably get a kick out of it.

I didn't say it was bad...my point is and has always been, there is no need for cameras in every court room.

 

[keith99]

Again you are totally missing the point, first of all I have no intention of watching any legal proceeding from beginning to end or probably at all. Legal proceedings tend to be just a little less exiting than watching paint dry. It needs to be available to anyone in the public, there are advocates out there that can do something with it.

Ah so what do you want? To make it easy to quote mine trials to mislead the public?

 

[keith99]

Does anyone besides me remember that since 1948 an eye and an ear in every room is the mark of totalitarian government not of freedom? (Yes I do remember publication dates when it is easy to do so).

 

[aieyiamfu]

Does anyone besides me remember that since 1948 an eye and an ear in every room is the mark of totalitarian government not of freedom? (Yes I do remember publication dates when it is easy to do so).

Yeah I want it a public setting not private. That actually.is protection against the totalitarian state.

 

[aieyiamfu]

And??? your point is...what can't be access via the written word that requires cameras?

My point is that is not good enough.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

IMO, cameras are not allowed in some states, to retain the privacy of some people, not to keep the proceedings from anyone.

Good records are kept of all proceedings and the court room is filled with witnesses.

 

[Judahs_Lion]

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.

In fact, I believe the supreme court should broadcast its cases.

 

[blackribbon]

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.

In fact, I believe the supreme court should broadcast its cases.

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

 

[Judahs_Lion]

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

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.

 

[blackribbon]

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.

Because there is much in life that should be limited to "need to know"....we shouldn't get to peek into everyone's lives just because we pay our cable bill every month. If the OP really believed in a world with complete transparency, he would have filled out more info on his CF profile... If you have a need to know, go to the court house...don't require the taxpayers to pay more employees to run cameras and process all the footage for people who don't have any need to know. Not everyone in the court room is guilty of a crime and a right to some level of privacy should be afforded out of decency. Do you want to be recorded at work every day? But my basic premise is that the system isn't broke as is...if you are really interested, GO to the court house. As for transparency, the transcripts exist....

 

[Judahs_Lion]

Because there is much in life that should be limited to "need to know"....we shouldn't get to peek into everyone's lives just because we pay our cable bill every month. If the OP really believed in a world with complete transparency, he would have filled out more info on his CF profile... If you have a need to know, go to the court house...don't require the taxpayers to pay more employees to run cameras and process all the footage for people who don't have any need to know. Not everyone in the court room is guilty of a crime and a right to some level of privacy should be afforded out of decency. Do you want to be recorded at work every day? But my basic premise is that the system isn't broke as is...if you are really interested, GO to the court house. As for transparency, the transcripts exist....

No, not everyone in the court proceeding is guilty. That is why there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That's why also there are open courts. So that proceedings are not done in secret so as to violate a citizens rights to due process.
In criminal trials it is the people who are trying the accused. Therefore it is the right of the people to know what is being done in their name.

If someone is not guilty of the crime or crimes they were charged with, then an open court insures that their name and reputation are cleared when the verdict comes through.
Your argument lacks consistency.

The reference to work is not relevant here.

 

[TheDag]

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.

How would you feel if we decided to assume the worst about you. For example perhaps we should assume you are paranoid and a control freak. Why does it have to be a bad motive for not wanting cameras in the courtroom? Personally I have seen footage from a few trials where cameras were used and it has been very much a circus. It also makes it hard for people to be independent if there needs to be a retrial as everyone will have already seen. Perhaps jury members don't want to be on tv. Perhaps there might be someone vengeful on whichever side loses the case.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Because there is much in life that should be limited to "need to know"....we shouldn't get to peek into everyone's lives just because we pay our cable bill every month. If the OP really believed in a world with complete transparency, he would have filled out more info on his CF profile... If you have a need to know, go to the court house...don't require the taxpayers to pay more employees to run cameras and process all the footage for people who don't have any need to know. Not everyone in the court room is guilty of a crime and a right to some level of privacy should be afforded out of decency. Do you want to be recorded at work every day? But my basic premise is that the system isn't broke as is...if you are really interested, GO to the court house. As for transparency, the transcripts exist....

I don't believe in complete transparency in life just where the government is involved in anyway.

 

[aieyiamfu]

How would you feel if we decided to assume the worst about you. For example perhaps we should assume you are paranoid and a control freak. Why does it have to be a bad motive for not wanting cameras in the courtroom? Personally I have seen footage from a few trials where cameras were used and it has been very much a circus. It also makes it hard for people to be independent if there needs to be a retrial as everyone will have already seen. Perhaps jury members don't want to be on tv. Perhaps there might be someone vengeful on whichever side loses the case.

Perhaps transparency supercedes all those things.
P.S. it's not paranoia if they are really out to get you.