Should most trials be televised?

Biggins

Given that the public wants to see more transparency in the way our laws work and are seen to be used, is it about time we started broadcasting state criminal cases?

* Leaving out "Family Law" and certain other cases where identity of victims takes precedent without question.

Q. Is it time the public actually was able to see what goes on in court on a daily basis?

DrumSteve

yeah... so we can see how they get away with it.

chin_grin

No, I wouldn't want to watched hyped sensationalism of Judge Judy. It'll just be more bullsh!t manufactured martyrism the TV is renowned for.......sigh.......<stares in to distance>

Dyr

In one of my crazier moments I thought that we should have details of everyone who is convicted of an offence on a website, where we can search for them via name address, look up on a map. Read the court proceedings and sentence etc. Time for a bit of name and shame

mikom

Biggins wrote: »

Should most trials be televised?

Would love it.

"You are about to enter the courtroom of Judge John-Joe. The people are real. The cases are real. The rulings are final. This is his courtroom. This is Judge John-Joe."

OutlawPete

No, people have a right to privacy until proven guilty.

I agree with the public gallery but not with Media reporting anything that occurs mid-trial when someone could still possibly be innocent.

You cannot undo reputation destruction.

Mud sticks.

Biggins

How about the recording of a trial?
If a person is found guilty, their trial could be subsequently televised but if found innocent, its not broadcast?

Just an idea - open to be shot down.

Turtyturd

Yes, anything that takes away from a scumbags anonyminity (sp?) is a step in the right direction.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Not at all... RTE have their hands full at the moment mass producing shíte, you want to add to this dung heap? Shame on you biggins :P

gaz wac

IBTC (camera)

sidneykidney

No,who would want to watch the utter drivel that RTE would produce if it got its hands on the rights to screen cases.

If your that interested,go down to the court,theres public (aka nosey fooker) galleries in most of them afaik.

Biggins

Arielle Disgusting Tambourine wrote: »

Not at all... RTE have their hands full at the moment mass producing shíte, you want to add to this dung heap? Shame on you biggins :P

We can stick it on the Irish channel - its viewer-ship might increase from single digits!

OutlawPete

Biggins wrote: »

How about the recording of a trial?
If a person is found guilty, their trial could be subsequently televised but if found innocent, its not broadcast?

Just an idea - open to be shot down.

Yep, would agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, I got the Hot Dogs, Popcorn and Beer out for the OJ trial but I'm older now and see it for what it was .. a zoo.

The man was not proven Guilty, we had no right as a society to watch his trial.

Recording, I have no objections with.

I watch many crime documentaries where trials are shown after someone has been found guilty.

pickarooney

Nobody would watch that crap. Most trial proceedings make Oireachtas Report look like Celebrity Deathmatch.

amacachi

Are there not typed records of Trials freely available?

hooradiation

I fail to see how broadcasting trials will do anything even approaching good.

Biggins

pickarooney wrote: »

Nobody would watch that crap. Most trial proceedings make Oireachtas Report look like Celebrity Deathmatch.

This is very true.
I've been involved with many, many trials and sometimes, most times it was a long, LONG day.
For the national cases though, the editing process would be a godsend however.

I'm not advocating trials all day, every day.
Maybe an hour once a week, just to show how things are actually done to a wider audience?

ScumLord

OutlawPete wrote: »

No, people have a right to privacy until proven guilty.

I agree with the public gallery but not with Media reporting anything when someone could possibly be innocent.

You cannot undo reputation destruction.

Mud sticks.

But what would be the difference between walking into the public gallery and watching it online.

I think it would be good for all to see trials, it's the working of public law. The courts are doing our bidding so we should be able to supervise what they're doing.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Biggins wrote: »

We can stick it on the Irish channel - its viewer-ship might increase from single digits!

They could adopt the Iran Road Eireann slogo:

"We're not there yet"

Biggins

There is the argument by some that if the public actually saw what went on in the Irish court rooms of the land, they might be more shocked at the pace of things, the way they were done and demand resolutely to their TD's that changes were implemented from the stoic outdated methods currently used.

Some out there might fear exposure for other reasons!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Biggins wrote: »

How about the recording of a trial?
If a person is found guilty, their trial could be subsequently televised but if found innocent, its not broadcast?

Just an idea - open to be shot down.

No, sorry - i don´t think real live legal trials should be reduced to public entertainment. I don´t for one secodn see it as being ¨educational¨ - especially if the ratings start to fall.

In any case, what kind of crimes are you suggesting? Murder? Never going to happen. Non-payment of TV licence? gripping stuff!!

Biggins wrote: »

There is the argument by some that if the public actually saw what went on in the Irish court rooms of the land, they might be more shocked at the pace of things, the way they were done and demand resolutely to their TD's that changes were implemented from the stoic outdated methods currently used.

Some out there might fear exposure for other reasons!

I quote Homer Simpson:
¨Marge, do you want it done fast, or do you want it done right?¨

Biggins

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, sorry - i don´t think real live legal trials should be reduced to public entertainment. I don´t for one secodn see it as being ¨educational¨ - especially if the ratings start to fall.

In any case, what kind of crimes are you suggesting? Murder? Never going to happen. Non-payment of TV licence? gripping stuff!!

I quote Homer Simpson:
¨Marge, do you want it done fast, or do you want it done right?¨

Good points with strong foundation.

ScumLord

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, sorry - i don´t think real live legal trials should be reduced to public entertainment. I don´t for one secodn see it as being ¨educational¨ - especially if the ratings start to fall.

It won't ever get good ratings, most people will have absolutely no interest in watching it but every citizen should have the right to supervise a trial is they want to.

Helix

Biggins wrote: »

Q. Is it time the public actually was able to see what goes on in court on a daily basis?

they can already

just pop into the courthouse and watch it from the public gallery

amacachi

Biggins wrote: »

This is very true.
I've been involved with many, many trials and sometimes, most times it was a long, LONG day.
For the national cases though, the editing process would be a godsend however.

I'm not advocating trials all day, every day.
Maybe an hour once a week, just to show how things are actually done to a wider audience?

So an editted version of the trials? I really don't see how that would in any way improve awareness of how things are done without adding some kind of spin to the proceedings.

My name is URL

No I don't think it would be a great idea, especially if a jury is involved. There's already too much of a media frenzy around some cases and that can skew the outcome of a trial

Biggins

Some good points being made for both sides to be fair.

OutlawPete

ScumLord wrote: »

But what would be the difference between walking into the public gallery and watching it online..

Because Millions can see it online.

The public Gallery is limited access and a judge can block Media reporting.

Theta

Have you ever been to a trail. I went into the public gallery once. My god its so boring.

You would swear if they put it on tv it would turn into an episode of Single Female Lawyer!

Hank_Jones

After sitting in court a few times (no, I was not accused), I can honestly say that I would have absolutely no interest in watching it on tv.
The majority of cases (even in the supreme court) don't last very long in front of the judge, so there wouldn't be much stuff for televising.

Plus it's boring as fcuk.

ScumLord

Helix wrote: »

they can already

just pop into the courthouse and watch it from the public gallery

But what if your living on the other side of the country, disabled, on the run from the guards? Making people go to the court house does guarantee that most members of the public won't see the trial.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Because Millions can see it online.

The public Gallery is limited access and a judge can block Media reporting.

I understand that it would be difficult for those in court if all their neighbors and piers saw them in court but the fact is they'll know anyway. I've been in court and had my name in the local papers, had people talk about me and I wish they could have actually seen the trial, that way they would have known the facts instead of relying on humors and gossip.
Being caught with hash turned into me being a heroin dealer caught with pounds of heroin and I got 10 years in jail (I got no jail time). We're not going to do anything to stop ignorance in the public by with holding information from them because they're to ignorant.

Theta

ScumLord wrote: »

I understand that it would be difficult for those in court if all their neighbors and piers saw them in court but the fact is they'll know anyway. I've been in court and had my name in the local papers, had people talk about me and I wish they could have actually seen the trial, that way they would have known the facts instead of relying on humors and gossip.
Being caught with hash turned into me being a heroin dealer caught with pounds of heroin and I got 10 years in jail (I got no jail time). We're not going to do anything to stop ignorance in the public by with holding information from them because they're to ignorant.

This is exaclty the reason why they are NOT on TV. If they were on TV the media can twist and cut and show what they like which cound effect witnesses and even juriors (I know they are told not to read the paper but they are going to see things)

strobe

Biggins wrote: »

Given that the public wants to see more transparency in the way our laws work and are seen to be used, is it about time we started broadcasting state criminal cases?

* Leaving out "Family Law" and certain other cases where identity of victims takes precedent without question.

Q. Is it time the public actually was able to see what goes on in court on a daily basis?

No, no good would come from it in my opinion. Innocent people shouldn't have their faces plastered all over TV against their wishes. Even if they are guilty, how anyone could think that having witnesses broadcast on national telly wouldn't lead to problems I can't understand.

Besides, if anyone is really that curious as to what goes on in the criminal courts all you have to do is stroll into your local DC or in to the circuit court and take a seat. But I'd advise you to bring an i-pod or something because 99% of it is as mind numbingly dull as mass.

ScumLord

Theta wrote: »

This is exaclty the reason why they are NOT on TV. If they were on TV the media can twist and cut and show what they like which count effect witnesses and even juriors (I know they are told not to read the paper but they are going to see things)

Your right yes, they should not on a TV and not edited they can be online in the full though.

toiletduck

I really don't think it's a good idea, I don't see any positives. Sure as said people can go in and watch if they're interested in how it works.

ScumLord

toiletduck wrote: »

I really don't think it's a good idea, I don't see any positives. Sure as said people can go in and watch if they're interested in how it works.

When, how? Many courts in the country take place in back rooms that can barely fit in the people that are supposed to be there.

I think it's preventing the people from seeing how their legal system works. We can't go taking days off work to travel to Dublin to see the legal system at work.

strobe

ScumLord wrote: »

When, how? Many courts in the country take place in back rooms that can barely fit in the people that are supposed to be there.

I think it's preventing the people from seeing how their legal system works. We can't go taking days off work to travel to Dublin to see the legal system at work.

Tough...?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

ScumLord wrote: »

When, how? Many courts in the country take place in back rooms that can barely fit in the people that are supposed to be there.

I think it's preventing the people from seeing how their legal system works. We can't go taking days off work to travel to Dublin to see the legal system at work.

Well it's like anything really. Do you ask to watch your food being cooked? Watch a film from the projection room or sit in the cockpit of a plane on your travels? All pretty cool things to do, but it just doesn't happen.

If you want to know about the courts take up a course in legal studies. Cover the lesislation, constitution, the president, dail, seanad, tort, criminal law etc etc. :P

ScumLord

Arielle Disgusting Tambourine wrote: »

Well it's like anything really. Do you ask to watch your food being cooked? Watch a film from the projection room or sit in the cockpit of a plane on your travels? All pretty cool things to do, but it just doesn't happen.

If you want to know about the courts take up a course in legal studies. Cover the lesislation, constitution, the president, dail, seanad, tort, criminal law etc etc. :P

Basically spend the money necessary to become one of the elite that are allowed to understand the courts.


And I do expect to be able to see my food being cooked. If I want to know whats involved in flying a plane I can do that quiet easily and have, I would have an interest in seeing how the projector room works and can find out. All that information is readily available to me but the point is the people in the courts are dishing out sentences and condemning people in my name and I should be able to supervise what they're doing in my name.

Antbert

Utterly awful idea. As someone has said, transcripts are available aren't they? So if people are that desperate to know how the justice system works (and don't just want to argue from their armchair about it) they can make the effort to go and look it up. There's no need to have the media crawling all over it twisting everything (already been said as well, but I'm in agreement). Naming and shaming is not the way forward.

strobe

ScumLord wrote: »

the point is the people in the courts are dishing out sentences and condemning people in my name and I should be able to supervise what they're doing in my name.

Unless you are suggesting that the judge gives an indebt monologue of their thoughts when applying a sentence for every case and the jury does the same then televised courts are not going to help you there. It's a terrible idea with no positives and a long list of negatives.

ScumLord

Antbert wrote: »

Utterly awful idea. As someone has said, transcripts are available aren't they? So if people are that desperate to know how the justice system works (and don't just want to argue from their armchair about it) they can make the effort to go and look it up. There's no need to have the media crawling all over it twisting everything (already been said as well, but I'm in agreement). Naming and shaming is not the way forward.

I'm not saying the media should be broadcasting it, I should have been clear on that. They should have a website where you can get transcripts, audio and video, it should be open and available to the people who give the court it's power.

Antbert

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not saying the media should be broadcasting it, I should have been clear on that. They should have a website where you can get transcripts, audio and video, it should be open and available to the people who give the court it's power.

That's quite different to televising it. Would there be any media interference in this whatsoever or would it be a rather dull government run site?

ScumLord

Antbert wrote: »

That's quite different to televising it. Would there be any media interference in this whatsoever or would it be a rather dull government run site?

Dull government run site that most people wouldn't bother their hole going near, me included I just want the option to view all this stuff.

the_syco

Turtyturd wrote: »

Yes, anything that takes away from a scumbags anonyminity (sp?) is a step in the right direction.

Actually, it may make some scumbags more likely to do crime, so that they get their hour of fame.

sdanseo

Absolutely not.

Yeah, I've wished from time to time I could see what was going on but at the end of the day that's what public galleries are for. Maybe if they're full, a viewing room within the court complex by extension of the public gallery but not mainstream telivsing of court cases. It would only lead to trial by public opinion and listening to the gossip from some recent cases, people really do jump to conclusions and always negative ones.

Leave things as they are, let people actually stand a chance of a fair trial. What people do or don't do isn't really other people's business and by telivising trials it'd be invading their privacy - especially if found not guilty.

conorhal

Yes.

And further more the honorable Judge Judy should preside over the lot of them, then we might actually see some common sense in your average court judgement. :mad:

randomuser77

I'd hate to pick on you ScumLord but you do seem to be the most prominent advocate of this. You said previously:

ScumLord wrote: »

When, how? Many courts in the country take place in back rooms that can barely fit in the people that are supposed to be there.

I think it's preventing the people from seeing how their legal system works. We can't go taking days off work to travel to Dublin to see the legal system at work.

There are enough spaces for the people who really want to be there. If that means you have to queue, fine. If it means that you have to take work off or make some other sort of sacrifice then that's fine too. The benefits of having a legal system open to the public is that we can keep an eye on it and ensure it acts in accordance with our wishes. These benefits will only accrue if the person watching it takes an active interest in the system, ie, the sort of person that will make such sacrifices. I can't imagine the same benefits coming from a person who was merely watching it because there was nothing else on TV.

The status quo facilitates those who care; that is enough. To go much further is to risk undue damage to the reputations of innocent people (as has been covered in depth already). Why should we risk that when the group we are opening access to are unlikely to generate the sort of benefits we want?

Moreover ...

Arielle Disgusting Tambourine said:

Arielle Disgusting Tambourine wrote: »

If you want to know about the courts take up a course in legal studies. Cover the lesislation, constitution, the president, dail, seanad, tort, criminal law etc etc. :P

ScumLord replied:

ScumLord wrote: »

Basically spend the money necessary to become one of the elite that are allowed to understand the courts.

What is TV coverage going to do for your ability to understand the courts if you are not willing to learn about the Law through existing media? If you don't "understand the courts" then what is televising it going to do for you? If you believe that you will figure the Law out from the TV then you are deluding yourself. Most cases tend to be so limited to their own facts as to have little to no precedential value. If you want to learn about the Law then pick up a book.

Antbert

ScumLord wrote: »

I should be able to supervise what they're doing in my name.

Then you say:

ScumLord wrote: »

Dull government run site that most people wouldn't bother their hole going near, me included I just want the option to view all this stuff.

I was under the impression you wanted to know how the justice system worked. I'm massively confused now.

lugha

I’d be in favour. I have never understood the rational for now allowing camera in court rooms. Justice should be administered in public and camera’s make it more widely available to the public.

randomuser77

lugha wrote: »

I’d be in favour. I have never understood the rational for now allowing camera in court rooms. Justice should be administered in public and camera’s make it more widely available to the public.

We've covered that, but allow me to give you an example.

Let's say that a Law was passed to allow the use of cameras in the court room. Next, say you are wrongly accused of rape. The media covering the case will want to shorten it to its basic details. The most interesting details are the details of the act you've allegedly committed. The less interesting details are the ones which prove you didn't do it. The media, and certain branches in particular, will focus on the more sensational details. Now supposing justice runs it's course and you are acquitted and allowed to run your life as usual. How do you think you'd feel about the fact that the public at large believe that you are a filthy rapist. They invariably will. That sort of stain is hard to remove.