Cameras in courts?

[Darat]

The government consultation regarding allowing cameras into courts is due to be published today. (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4011829.stm)

It has often seemed an anachronism to me that cameras are not allowed into court sessions. Even more so once they were allowed into the Houses of Commons, the Lords and select committees.

I suspect there are some very practical issues that would restrict their use, especially in many of the UK’s older court rooms but is that a reason to not allow them at all?

What is the value (if any) of letting them in? It can’t be freedom of the press, after all the press is tightly controlled with regards to what they can and can’t report during a trial. It can’t be freedom of information since after a trail the judges decision is pubic, the jury (if applicable) decision is public and the court transcripts are public.

I really don’t see any reason (beyond voyeurism and cheap TV content) that there is any need or value for cameras in courts.

(Edited for words and. punctuation.)

 

[richardm]

Since the public can, if they wish, go to most court sessions and see the proceedings in person, I'm not really sure what the objection would be. I've seen it argued that it might put off potential witnesses, and there may be something in that, but surely they could be neatly anonymised if need be.

When they first started televising parliamentary proceedings, there were dire predictions on what the effect might be. Originally, the director was only supposed to be a head-and-shoulders shot of whoever was speaking, with no wider views of the chamber (in order to avoid the public seeing MPs sleeping). In the end, I don't think it's changed anything for the worse, and the original rules have slipped away.

So yes, I think at least a trial (hoho) of the idea would be interesting.

 

[CFLarsen]

Documentation. Instead of having a court clerk typing what people say, tape the damn thing.

But for public viewing? No, I don't think so.

 

[richardm]

But for public viewing? No, I don't think so.

Are you going to elaborate on that at all?

 

[Matabiri]

One major reason: identification of jury members (although this should be straightforward to work around). In any cases involving dodgy people, if jury members can be identified, they can be intimidated. I think there's one court in the Old Bailey which has the jury below the public gallery (i.e. out of sight of the public) for this reason.

With respect to court records and taping - I've had this argument with my (lawyer) girlfriend once or twice. The reason behind having one stenographer is so that there is no possibility of dispute about the transcript later - what the clerk writes is, legally, what was said. If (s)he makes an error in transcription, that error cannot be proven to exist.

The reasoning here is that if statements of law from previous trials can be disputed, as they potentially could be if there were multiple records/transcriptions, it would undermine the way the court system works. Which I think is a pretty weak argument, along the lines of papal infalliablility - but it's the current in situ theory.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you going to elaborate on that at all?

Ehh...do I need to?

It would make a side show out of a criminal trial. We know that television defines reality. It should be defined by justice instead.

Take the O.J. case. Judge Ito allowed the trial to turn into a circus - it was a mess from day 1.

 

[richardm]

Ehh...do I need to?

Yeah, go on

It would make a side show out of a criminal trial. We know that television defines reality. It should be defined by justice instead.

Take the O.J. case. Judge Ito allowed the trial to turn into a circus - it was a mess from day 1.

I think there is a risk of that happening, although we must bear in mind that they were Americans But in this day and age, we still have court reporters rushing out and making synopses from memory, and court artists doing chalk sketches from inside the room. Can't help but think that it would be better to see and hear what's going on properly. It'd make the judiciary less remote, perhaps, at the very least. (I'm assuming that's something we want to happen!)

I'm prepared to have my mind changed on the matter, but for me the clincher is that anyone can go and see a trial in person if they want, so why not make it easier to see one?

 

[Darat]

Since the public can, if they wish, go to most court sessions and see the proceedings in person, I'm not really sure what the objection would be. I've seen it argued that it might put off potential witnesses, and there may be something in that, but surely they could be neatly anonymised if need be.

For me it isn't that the court should be "private" I was just wondering what value it would actually add. WOuld it impove our justice system for example.

I see Claus mentions recording it for documentation, that I can see having some value, a court clerk doen't take down exactly everything everyone says all the time.

When they first started televising parliamentary proceedings, there were dire predictions on what the effect might be. Originally, the director was only supposed to be a head-and-shoulders shot of whoever was speaking, with no wider views of the chamber (in order to avoid the public seeing MPs sleeping). In the end, I don't think it's changed anything for the worse, and the original rules have slipped away.

So yes, I think at least a trial (hoho) of the idea would be interesting.

I remember those comments about how cameras in the House of Parliament would be disastrous; imagine MPs and Lords not being able to nod-off in the chamber any longer? But I could see a value in having cameras in Parliament, that is government and the more it is accessible to everyone the better. I find some select committees that BBC Parliament shows to be fascinating. It has been a real insight into the mendacity of some witnesses and the role our elected representatives actually play in legislation and the like.

 

[Ed]

Yeah, go on





I'm prepared to have my mind changed on the matter, but for me the clincher is that anyone can go and see a trial in person if they want, so why not make it easier to see one? [/B]

I think that people have a tendency to play for the camera (as Claus mentioned, OJ) and that is not good. This is, after all, not public spectical but a serious matter. I would have no objection to taping "for the record" not to be released until later.

As far as "documenting" testamony, remember the Nixon tapes? Outside of a studio it seems that quality sucks really badly.

 

[Tmy]

I always thought it was lame to NOT have cameras during Supreme Court Arguments. That might actually get me to watch CSPAN!!

 

[CBL4]

A camera in the court room gives the people involved a great incentive to act appropriately. There are numerous judges, lawyers and expert witnesses (minority of them but numerous) that make indefensible remarks. If they know that the may appear on the "bozo of the week" television show it may make act better or cost them their jobs.

It's like cameras on police cars, it gives police a great defense when they act properly and a method to prosecute for the few who do not.

You can say transcripts provide the same opportunity but that is not the case. We had reports of torture for two years before Abu Graib but it did not hit the headlines until there were photos. Photos and tape hit us where words cannot.

CBL

 

[Jim Bowen]

I'd be in favour of cameras in court as long as it was in the wider interests of the public (damnably hard to define exactly what that is, though) and not for entertainment value.

Jim Bowen

 

[Walter Wayne]

Much of the circus with OJ resulted from almost live coverage. I think if the policy was to not release tapes until after the verdict and perhaps sentencing, the circus was be virtually eliminated.

Such a situation satisfies the need for justice not only be done, but seen to be done, while at the same time reduce OJ like trials.

Walt

 

[H3LL]

Much of the circus with OJ resulted from almost live coverage. I think if the policy was to not release tapes until after the verdict and perhaps sentencing, the circus was be virtually eliminated.....

IMHO I couldn't agree more. An innocent person acquitted of an hideous crime is going to have a tough time if his/her face has been all over the prime-time news for several months.

Particularly if that person is not very charismatic (I'm being polite) and the proceedings complex.

The current system of public access serves the purpose of "justice being seen to be done" without tarnishing the reputation nationwide of an innocent person.

Not guilty = No video release

would be preferable.

 

[Mojo]

Oh well, as J. B. Morton (AKA Beachcomber) said:

"Justice must not only be done; it has to be seen to be believed."

 

[Brown]

I always thought it was lame to NOT have cameras during Supreme Court Arguments. That might actually get me to watch CSPAN!!

I agree. The United States Supreme Court ought to allow cameras. The Court can control placement of the cameras as well as the feed to the news media.

But don't look for that to happen anytime soon. If Bush nominates Justice Scalia to succeed Justice Rehnquist as chief, then it is very unlikely that cameras will be permitted in the next fifteen years. Justice Scalia doesn't even want cameras or audio recorders present when he gives a speech.

 

[Brown]

Let me add also that some state supreme courts allow local news cameras in their courtrooms, and they have generally found that cameras are not disruptive of the arguments.