Cameras in courts?

Darat · 15th November 2004, 02:01 AM

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 UKâ€™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 canâ€™t be freedom of the press, after all the press is tightly controlled with regards to what they can and canâ€™t report during a trial. It canâ€™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 donâ€™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 · 15th November 2004, 02:10 AM

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 · 15th November 2004, 02:40 AM

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 · 15th November 2004, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But for public viewing? No, I don't think so.

Are you going to elaborate on that at all?

Matabiri · 15th November 2004, 03:21 AM

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 · 15th November 2004, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm
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 · 15th November 2004, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ehh...do I need to?

Yeah, go on

Quote:

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 · 15th November 2004, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm

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 · 15th November 2004, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm

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 · 15th November 2004, 06:26 AM

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

CBL4 · 15th November 2004, 09:37 AM

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 · 15th November 2004, 10:55 AM

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 · 15th November 2004, 04:52 PM

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 · 15th November 2004, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.....

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 · 16th November 2004, 12:47 PM

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

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

Brown · 16th November 2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
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 · 16th November 2004, 01:51 PM

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.

15th November 2004, 02:01 AM	#1
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,783	Cameras in courts? 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 UKâ€™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 canâ€™t be freedom of the press, after all the press is tightly controlled with regards to what they can and canâ€™t report during a trial. It canâ€™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 donâ€™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.)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

15th November 2004, 02:10 AM	#2
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	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.
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

15th November 2004, 02:40 AM	#3
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	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.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

15th November 2004, 02:57 AM	#4
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Quote: Originally posted by CFLarsen But for public viewing? No, I don't think so. Are you going to elaborate on that at all?
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

15th November 2004, 03:21 AM	#5
Matabiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,734	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.
	__________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy

15th November 2004, 03:39 AM	#6
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Quote: Originally posted by richardm 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.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

15th November 2004, 03:56 AM	#7
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Quote: Originally posted by CFLarsen Ehh...do I need to? Yeah, go on Quote: 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?
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

15th November 2004, 05:17 AM	#9
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by richardm 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.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

15th November 2004, 06:26 AM	#10
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	I always thought it was lame to NOT have cameras during Supreme Court Arguments. That might actually get me to watch CSPAN!!
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

15th November 2004, 09:37 AM	#11
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	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
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

15th November 2004, 10:55 AM	#12
Jim Bowen Thinker Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 245	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
Jim Bowen Thinker Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 245	__________________ '101 or more, non-darts player first'

15th November 2004, 04:52 PM	#13
Walter Wayne Wayne's Words Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,442	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

15th November 2004, 05:52 PM	#14
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Quote: Originally posted by 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..... 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.
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

16th November 2004, 12:47 PM	#15
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Oh well, as J. B. Morton (AKA Beachcomber) said: "Justice must not only be done; it has to be seen to be believed."
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

16th November 2004, 01:49 PM	#16
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,155	Quote: Originally posted by Tmy 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.

16th November 2004, 01:51 PM	#17
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,155	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.