Should trials be broadcast on TV?

[Inseriousity.]

So I read an article somewhere that they were looking at making the justice system more transparent by showing trials on television. Things like making the system more transparent, judges will know they're being watched and more likely to be tougher to give a good public impression and also allowing people/potential victims in the future knowledge of how the system operates so that if they are ever called up to give evidence, they are slightly better prepared for it than they would be without.

Arguments against are things like turning justice into a circus (or some would probably argue, a bigger circus), victims may not want to air these things in public, tv companies having too much power over what is shown/isn't etc.

With the recent Michael Jackson trial being broadcast, I was reminded of the article I read so thought I'd bring it here and see what people thought. Do you think criminal trials should be broadcast on TV? Would it create a better justice system or make it worse?

[GommeInc]

So I read an article somewhere that they were looking at making the justice system more transparent by showing trials on television. Things like making the system more transparent, judges will know they're being watched and more likely to be tougher to give a good public impression and also allowing people/potential victims in the future knowledge of how the system operates so that if they are ever called up to give evidence, they are slightly better prepared for it than they would be without.

Arguments against are things like turning justice into a circus (or some would probably argue, a bigger circus), victims may not want to air these things in public, tv companies having too much power over what is shown/isn't etc.

With the recent Michael Jackson trial being broadcast, I was reminded of the article I read so thought I'd bring it here and see what people thought. Do you think criminal trials should be broadcast on TV? Would it create a better justice system or make it worse?

No no no, definitely no. I hate the US for making the legal system and court trials a media circus. It's so tacky to see something as important as the legal system being torn to shreds by the public who believe their view is better than that of the professionals - the lawyers, the judges etc. I'm not overally keen on the idea that defendants, prosecuters, the jury and the judge's identities can be determined by such a system either. Besides, it's impossible for any high-key trials (as forementioned) being aired anyway, as the safety of everyone involved is at risk. They will only ever show small, domesticated conflicts which are a waste of time to get so worked up on.

I did a study on this which I'll hunt down as it had some interesting figures, but it was a while ago so can't remember them

[Ardemax]

Big no from me too.

I mean the lawyers may as well be called actors and should only get payed by how many likes, comments and favourites they get on youtube - or are we not thinking that far ahead?

I think that artists should be allowed to actually draw in there, or even take photographs, but not film or stream, that would be silly and justice would not be done.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, our 'justice' system shouldn't be turned into a reality-television show. I think the dangers are quite apparent, it turns the courts into something which could cater to the audiences rather than dishing out proper punishment, which, of course we don't now anyway.

Our present system is awful nor would I wish to follow the American justice model, restore the pre-1960s British system.

[AgnesIO]

No we shouldn't.

We don't want judges (or the jurors) to be distracted from their jobs. They are paid to do a job, not be TV heroes.

[Narnat,]

Not at all I think it would create more arguments because lets face it you can't make everyone happy. Fair do's to recording them but they shouldn't be for the public eye.

[JoeyK.]

Seems like most people are in agreement here - Trials should not be shown on television. I'll play the devil's advocate here and give a few reasons as to why this could actually be a good thing.

I cannot speak for the UK, as I do not have a good understanding of your guys' legal system. However, in the United States, the sixth amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. I cannot think of anything more 'public' than television broadcasting.

As far as editing the source material goes, this could be easily remedied by providing commercial-free broadcasting of live coverage of the trial. This would prevent the station from editing, similar to CSPAN's broadcasts of supreme court trials. This could be done at multiple levels, for example - a relatively important local trial being shown on a local station versus a national medium. There could be a nationwide channel for high-profile cases, and possibly even regional channels for the west, mid-west, east coast, etc. Alternatively, these high-profile regional cases could be shown on the same national networks. With internet access so readily available, none of this would even require television broadcasting; simply setting up a live camera and streaming the trial over the internet would be a cost-effective and simple way to keep the public informed.

Broadcasting the trial live would ensure that the defendant received a fair trial, and would give grounds for an appeal if there was a breach of justice, according to the law. This is particularly important with regards to corruption in the justice system.

[JoeyK.]

@ Gomme - Typically, I find that your posts offer a unique perspective on the issue at hand. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with you this time around. You hate (with emphasis) a country because of the media coverage of trials (who, by the way, the government has no control over; See the first amendment of the US constitution), and defend lawyers? These people are literally paid to exploit every dirty trick in the book to get their clients off the hook, or throw them in jail; they could care less about whether or not the defendant is guilty. Leaving it in their hands without any review from outside sources is just inviting corruption into the legal system.

It is quite possible for them to air a trial without revealing the identities of the jury members; simple camera angling or censorship a middle-school student could do would be more than sufficient. Prosecuting and defense lawyers are listed on the public records anyway, along with the name of the defendant (with the exception of minors) and judge; there is no reason to censor anything they are involved in.

[GommeInc]

@ Gomme - Typically, I find that your posts offer a unique perspective on the issue at hand. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with you this time around. You hate (with emphasis) a country because of the media coverage of trials (who, by the way, the government has no control over; See the first amendment of the US constitution), and defend lawyers? These people are literally paid to exploit every dirty trick in the book to get their clients off the hook, or throw them in jail; they could care less about whether or not the defendant is guilty. Leaving it in their hands without any review from outside sources is just inviting corruption into the legal system.

It is quite possible for them to air a trial without revealing the identities of the jury members; simple camera angling or censorship a middle-school student could do would be more than sufficient. Prosecuting and defense lawyers are listed on the public records anyway, along with the name of the defendant (with the exception of minors) and judge; there is no reason to censor anything they are involved in.

Hence why we have an impartial jury in the United Kingdom who are there to see if what the lawyers, prosecutors and /or defendant are saying is true, and to determine if they are law abiding citizens. The US system is similar, but we did implement that when we owned you The lawyers are there to defend their clients best interests and wishes, which is what you expect them to do considering they are paid to do it, but it's the jury who decide. Lawyers maybe dirty, but their say isn't final - it's the judge and the jury who have the ultimate say. Also, not sure where I defended lawyers I just said the decisions, arguments and debate within a court room should be left to the lawyers, the jury and the judge who at least have some ounce of intellect when it comes to the court system. And I never said I hated the US based on the way they turn the legal system into a media circus, I just said I hate how they've done it, not them in general

In the UK, court hearings are done publically through court reports AND you can sit in the public viewing box to see what happens. That's far better than some dodgy media company who are not going to be impartial. Besides all the interesting court cases would be censored by law anyway. The only court cases you'd ever see would be boring, domesticated issues involving cases like a Mr. Todd urinated in Mrs. Gina's dandelion patch. Child cases can never be viewed, and major cases hold too many important characters. Also, names aren't a major form of identity, seeing someones face like the defendant is worse than that of their name Even though there is censorship, it is completely unnecessary in the UK to broadcast court cases as it will be done purely for entertainment rather than to show justice being done. If you want to learn how the courts go, it's free to pop down to most courts in the country to see justice being served, and it would be far more interesting than they can put on the TV.

[-Danube-]

No i think it should all be kept private. Yes i agree it would make great TV if they were to broadcast some of the more serious crimes etc. But i think to show such things on TV is very insensitive, there's a victim and their family to think about. But not only that, what ever happened to the phrase 'Innocent until proven guilty', why should someone's face be splashed over the TV and everything when they haven't even been proven guilty yet.

I think the system in which the media publishes information about suspects in crimes is very wrong already, i don't think they should be allowed to publish the name, picture or any personal information about a person until they have been proven guilty. There have been many cases in the last year where people have been cleared of all charges but yet for weeks before they have been made out to be evil in the papers (that nurse accused of injecting saline drips with insulin and that landlord who was accused of killing that woman around christmas, both innocent people who were vilified by the press). It ruins peoples lives.

I mean the recent case with Amanda Knox basically sums this up, she's been splashed all over the TV for ages now and with her recent trial it has basically all been shown on TV. She has now been cleared of all charges and so in the eyes of the law she is innocent, but yet she has made out to be a complete devil.