Courtroom broadcasting
Adam Wagner on UK Human Rights Blog takes up the perennial question of whether courtroom proceedings should be broadcast. Some extracts from his blogpost:
…Should justice be televised?
The head of Sky News has argued in a new Guardian article that justice must be televised as allowing TV cameras in court would help restore public faith in criminal proceedings. …The usual arguments in support are:
- Television opens the court to public scrutiny
- Televised hearings can educate the public about what happens in the justice system
- Cameras have no negative impact on trials, according to U.S. research
- The public have a right to see justice done, and the only proper way this can be accomplished is to allow them access to hearings through their TV sets
And the arguments against:
- Televised justice leads to soundbites and sensationalism, and edited highlights of a case lose the subtlety of legal argument
- Television fosters disrespect for the court
- Cameras pervert the trial process as juries become star struck and lawyers grandstand
- Victims and witnesses are intimidated an can be less safe as a result. …
The Lawtube age
The debate over cameras in court is as old as camera technology itself, but in the age of YouTube, 24-hour news and the iPlayer, it should be reopened.