This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- University Of Liverpool: Student Accommodation - TV License
- "Caught" Using my phone whilst driving 4 months ago...
- Hertfordshire or Anglia Ruskin for filmmaking course?
- Essex or UEA?
- En-suite next to Tube station Zone 2
- School choice
- First speeding ticket
- Sublet- Wembly park
- Guo Wengui directed and performed the "Lie Trilogy"
- Contract takeover near Reading University, April - July
- alexa devices
- any ideas as to why this is happening?
- Looking for someone to take over my Newcastle tenancy
- Looking for someone to take over my Newcastle tenancy
- Room available on Giles Lane
- TV licensing letter, an investigation/scheduled visit? In student accommodation
- Bonham Carter Room Takeover
- Surrender contract(255/W) - Safe and Clean student dorm- Wembly Pavillon court Ensuit
- the death of youth culture & the teenager
- King’s College London room swap 2023/2024
TV Cameras in courts?
Did the pilot scheme ever get going? Just been reading some archived threads and came across this.
Onearmedbandit
Some of you may remember that thread I posted in the debate & discussion forum about TV cameras in our courts. Well, I was reading the times today and it says they're introducing a pilot scheme for broadcasting trials... They won't be available to the public but it's a "significant step".
Leave it in America (note the hint of sarcasm as I am not no.1 fan of our overseas friends).
Note that neither the Supreme Court nor the federal appeals courts stand for it, even in the US. I'm not sure about federal district courts.
Personally I think they should allow it, I mean what's the big deal, if it's a public trial let it be public, free the press!
Well I agree with the live-link feeds for vulnerable victims/witnesses. I learnt all about the federal and district court rules in the ‘American Law’ course during my LL.B (v. complicated). I am sure that there was some tacky case where the recordings leaked to the press though- I think that was quite well publicised when I was younger. The type of thing you would not expect to happen in England, only America, but you must excuse my biases- I am always falling out with Americans/American lawyers and I am not a reliable source of info. 
(hence the sulky comment)
Back to the original 'issue' I am not a fan of video-recording court cases because my new found criminological background is giving me too much empathy for various 'crims' save for the likes of Ian Huntley etc...etc... I guess on a not so well reasoned note I would feel it most wrong to hang the defendant's "pieces of dirty washing out" in the media in the most complicated of cases; e.g. sometimes the line between defendant and victim is weak, in other cases it is more clear cut. I would not want to stigmatise the former group by making their moment of weakness accessible via a play/stop button.
(hence the sulky comment)Back to the original 'issue' I am not a fan of video-recording court cases because my new found criminological background is giving me too much empathy for various 'crims' save for the likes of Ian Huntley etc...etc... I guess on a not so well reasoned note I would feel it most wrong to hang the defendant's "pieces of dirty washing out" in the media in the most complicated of cases; e.g. sometimes the line between defendant and victim is weak, in other cases it is more clear cut. I would not want to stigmatise the former group by making their moment of weakness accessible via a play/stop button.
There was a programme on the BBC about this about 2 weeks ago. The majority of lawyers they spoke to said they didn't like it because the public were reaching their own conclusion about the accused's guilt regardless of the verdict. But then I suppose this happens anyway, given the way the media report most crimes.
Solemn Wanderer
Well nothing wrong with that. Compelling public and moral interests require that they be dealt with but they are still people (Huntley included). I guess
But it's not just for defendants' protection.
But it's not just for defendants' protection.
Quite right too
p.s thanks for the sympathy comment on Facebook regarding my accidential visit to the Gents' in the university library.
Solemn Wanderer
Well nothing wrong with that. Compelling public and moral interests require that they be dealt with but they are still people (Huntley included).
But it's not just for defendants' protection. Victims frequently find giving evidence in court to be one of the most harrowing experiences of their lives (a soldier alleged to have been assaulted I chatted to the other day certainly did - it was worse than Iraq apparently). How much worse would that be if one's testimony were to be broadcast to television screens around the world?
But it's not just for defendants' protection. Victims frequently find giving evidence in court to be one of the most harrowing experiences of their lives (a soldier alleged to have been assaulted I chatted to the other day certainly did - it was worse than Iraq apparently). How much worse would that be if one's testimony were to be broadcast to television screens around the world?
Victims, defendants, yeah...but MORE IMPORTANTLY, barristers!
Second six would be infinitely more terrifying if my fledgling efforts were being captured for posterity...though they do usually make an audio recording...Nana_Julia
Victims, defendants, yeah...but MORE IMPORTANTLY, barristers! Second six would be infinitely more terrifying if my fledgling efforts were being captured for posterity...though they do usually make an audio recording...
Second six would be infinitely more terrifying if my fledgling efforts were being captured for posterity...though they do usually make an audio recording...Thanks for the WHY? Rep Nana- reason, there would be less barristers in the world once movie agents caught eye of sexy Nana and Hullshire on screen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/17/law.justice
YEY
p.s Ryands IT buff, how did you get that mini-UCL icon on your sig?
YEY
p.s Ryands IT buff, how did you get that mini-UCL icon on your sig?
LOL cool, by next year I will have been involved with 6 universities, I could put all their logos on LOL; watch the TSR bitch some of them and admire others
Courtrooms have public galleries, should any member of the public wish to view a trial. / What they are NOT are entertainment studios, to be served up in neat bite-size chunks either side of the adverts for the brain-dead 'Trisha' and 'Jeremy Kyle' viewing public.==
Hear, bloody hear!
The debacle that is courtroom television in the US should warn us away from such madness as allowing televised trials. The legal process is cheapened and judges, far from being kept from corruption etc., become performers; legal advocates begin to primp for political or media careers; justice takes a backseat to spectacle; politicians begin to weigh-in on on-going cases, offering opinions that can and do sway public opinion and non-sequestered juries.
None of that is justice being seen to be done.
HildebrandBowman
YEY- the Guardian debaters agree with me. ! high fives.
P.s don't get the private pos rep about Ms Powell; I am I being stupid??
Hear, bloody hear!
The debacle that is courtroom television in the US should warn us away from such madness as allowing televised trials. The legal process is cheapened and judges, far from being kept from corruption etc., become performers; legal advocates begin to primp for political or media careers; justice takes a backseat to spectacle; politicians begin to weigh-in on on-going cases, offering opinions that can and do sway public opinion and non-sequestered juries.
None of that is justice being seen to be done.
HildebrandBowman
YEY- the Guardian debaters agree with me. !
high fives.P.s don't get the private pos rep about Ms Powell; I am I being stupid??
NDGAARONDI
cheers... (v.kind) but all my logos go all over the page and look ridiculous
Must be lacking in skill
arrah..)
I'm not sure. As a conservative, I'm generally suspicious of anything that causes any great change in the traditions of our legal system.
All the same, the old maxim that justice must be seen to be done rings true even today and I can see some value behind the idea: at least then the public may realise that criminal matters aren't quite so black and white as the tabloids make out.
All the same, the old maxim that justice must be seen to be done rings true even today and I can see some value behind the idea: at least then the public may realise that criminal matters aren't quite so black and white as the tabloids make out.
Hmm, the media would take small snippets out which would give a completely misleading impression of a particular person. That person would then sue the newspaper/broadcaster for defamation/libel. The media would then take small snippets out of that trial which would give a completely misleading impression...
Can you see where this is going?
Can you see where this is going?
On balance, I think I'm against the idea.
As far as openness is concerned, those who have the inclination to observe the legal process have unrestricted access to the public galleries. If we open this sort of thing up to the media, then all sorts of additional political agendas will come into play.
My immediate reaction is that the majority of people (sad but true) have no real desire to partake in discussion about this sort of thing and by inviting cameras into the courtroom the majority of people (who don't care especially..) will be fed a warped view of proceedings and make ill-advised and media-biased judgements about cases.
I think it would be very unhelpful.
As far as openness is concerned, those who have the inclination to observe the legal process have unrestricted access to the public galleries. If we open this sort of thing up to the media, then all sorts of additional political agendas will come into play.
My immediate reaction is that the majority of people (sad but true) have no real desire to partake in discussion about this sort of thing and by inviting cameras into the courtroom the majority of people (who don't care especially..) will be fed a warped view of proceedings and make ill-advised and media-biased judgements about cases.
I think it would be very unhelpful.
Related discussions
- University Of Liverpool: Student Accommodation - TV License
- "Caught" Using my phone whilst driving 4 months ago...
- Hertfordshire or Anglia Ruskin for filmmaking course?
- Essex or UEA?
- En-suite next to Tube station Zone 2
- School choice
- First speeding ticket
- Sublet- Wembly park
- Guo Wengui directed and performed the "Lie Trilogy"
- Contract takeover near Reading University, April - July
- alexa devices
- any ideas as to why this is happening?
- Looking for someone to take over my Newcastle tenancy
- Looking for someone to take over my Newcastle tenancy
- Room available on Giles Lane
- TV licensing letter, an investigation/scheduled visit? In student accommodation
- Bonham Carter Room Takeover
- Surrender contract(255/W) - Safe and Clean student dorm- Wembly Pavillon court Ensuit
- the death of youth culture & the teenager
- King’s College London room swap 2023/2024
