Should the Oscar Pistorius trial be televised?

Hitchens

A judge in SA has ruled that it can be televised.

Would it have much of a bearing on the outcome?

cletus van damme

Hitchens wrote: »

A judge in SA has ruled that it can be televised.

Would it have much of a bearing on the outcome?

i'm in favour of televised justice so that the public can see justice in action.
Too often we are reliant on what the print media report and they often skew things.

so yes.

eamonnq

Would you watch it ?

Jester252

It's OJ all over again

marc96

Only certain parts are televised.his statement won't be along with any other person who does not want their statements recorded

Fr_Dougal

His lawyer’s got a hard job ahead of him. Realistically, it looks like Pistorius hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

SEPT 23 1989

cletus van damme wrote: »

i'm in favour of televised justice so that the public can see justice in action.
Too often we are reliant on what the print media report and they often skew things.

so yes.

if the general public watched the carry on in the courts in this country there would be uproar

never going to happen

I'd be worried that some aspects of the process would be influenced by the presence of cameras, the prospect of surveillance and press judgement and opinion on the evidence presented daily.

I'm not sure it's in the best interests of a fair trial, even if it does mean that justice will be seen to be done. Not that I think it really does mean that necessarily.

goose2005

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

if the general public watched the carry on in the courts in this country there would be uproar

never going to happen

As far as I know, most courts don't even use audio tape in Ireland, despite the minimal cost.

godtabh

Hitchens wrote: »

A judge in SA has ruled that it can be televised.

Would it have much of a bearing on the outcome?

Yes the judge said so

Tilly

Sure wasnt to OJ trial great craic. TBH the amount of crap that has been reported about this, i'd say it will be great tv.

Merkin

I personally will be GLUED to this if they broadcast it!

Merkin

Merkin wrote: »

I personally will be GLUED to this if they broadcast it!

Me too. We'll all be part of the Observer Effect!

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.

The OJ trial seems to have been a real life soap-opera, I think this will probably be the same.

Dreading the threads by all the wannabe legal eagles debating all the finer points of the evidence here though!

MadsL

Jester252 wrote: »

It's OJ all over again

I left the top off, sorry about that. Here's a sheet of Bounty.

danniemcq

I think all court cases should be televised.

I understand that some you will need to take precautions to prevent sensative cases and peoples identities but thats not that big an issue.

Currently we only see outcomes unless you have a huge interest and are able to go to the court to see it in action. It would open the courts for questioning, for example how many of us have thought that a certain sentance was to long or short well now you can see the whole thing and maybe agree with it or maybe it would open more questions and perhaps make the courts better?

The reasons for the case in SA being televised is that it means that the case is nothing special and just because he is a celeb he isn't getting special treatment.

Alf Veedersane

Maybe they should take on board ideas from reality tv shows, like public votes.

Ant and Dec could present.

Push Pop

TheZohan wrote: »

His lawyer’s got a hard job ahead of him. Realistically, it looks like Pistorius hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

I think he may get off, I mean it was at night and very dark, he couldn't see 2 feet in front of him!

IK09

No court cases should be televised until the revolution is televised.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Hitchens wrote: »

A judge in SA has ruled that it can be televised.

Would it have much of a bearing on the outcome?

Actually that's factually untrue.
A judge in South Africa has ruled that very limited parts of the trial can be televised.

asteroth

DannieHasABrazilian wrote: »

I think all court cases should be televised.

I understand that some you will need to take precautions to prevent sensative cases and peoples identities but thats not that big an issue.

Currently we only see outcomes unless you have a huge interest and are able to go to the court to see it in action. It would open the courts for questioning, for example how many of us have thought that a certain sentance was to long or short well now you can see the whole thing and maybe agree with it or maybe it would open more questions and perhaps make the courts better?

The reasons for the case in SA being televised is that it means that the case is nothing special and just because he is a celeb he isn't getting special treatment.

With hundreds of cases being heard each day we're going to need a shitload of extra TV channels to broadcast all that crap.

paulbok

As it happened on Feb 14th.

Roses are red,
Voilets are glorious,
Don't ever surprise,
Oscar Pistorius.

danniemcq

asteroth wrote: »

With hundreds of cases being heard each day we're going to need a shitload of extra TV channels to broadcast all that crap.

Ok fair point never thought of it that way! I guess there would be the option of streaming online via webcam. I guess i just like the idea of being able to see and question choices and decisions.

stefan idiot jones

As long as his stoning to death by her family is broadcasted live, that's all I want to see.

I think the murdering cnut will get off. Like OJ.

GalwayGuy2

Hmmm, I'm not sure about court cases being televised.

It'll turn into the prosecutor/defendant speaking to the watchers, rather than to the jury.

biko

They should bring in the cast from Ally McBeal. That's the only way I'll watch it.

stefan idiot jones

biko wrote: »

They should bring in the cast from Ally McBeal. That's the only way I'll watch it.

Or Ironside?

caustic 1

Isn't he getting special treatment by televising it, if it were an ordinary joe soap it wouldn't be heard of.

El Weirdo

cletus van damme wrote: »

i'm in favour of televised justice so that the public can see justice in action.
Too often we are reliant on what the print media report and they often skew things.

so yes.

But you already can see justice in action.

Stone Deaf 4evr

His lawyers briefcase was found at a coffeeshop near the courthouse. Apparently the basis for his defense is that another assailant killed the victim.

the evidence given? - footprints.

Hitchens

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm not sure about court cases being televised.

It'll turn into the prosecutor/defendant speaking to the watchers, rather than to the jury.

Let the viewers be the jury......the phone lines are open now! :pac:

kowloon

MadsL wrote: »

I left the top off, sorry about that. Here's a sheet of Bounty.

It's called 'Plenty' now. Does kitchen roll go out of date? I'm not enjoying this Marathon bar.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to turn trials into entertainment.

razorblunt

I'm only watching to scratch off my Courtroom Bingo card.

"Objection!' ... 'Sustained"
"That's out of order ... you're out of order"
"Ah you see Mr Nahasapeemapetilon I'm not even wearing a tie"

Let's hope the defendant doesn't use the Time to Kill closing argument!

blade1

asteroth wrote: »

With hundreds of cases being heard each day we're going to need a shitload of extra TV channels to broadcast all that crap.

Just replace the crap we have already!

Holsten

Why? Trials such as this happen all over the world everyday.

It's a part of life.

MagicMarker

By all means record court cases and make them available to the public.

Using murder trials as a form of entertainment though it fúcking sickening.

FunLover18

Holsten wrote: »

Why? Trials such as this happen all over the world everyday.

It's a part of life.

I actually deleted my comment because I didn't want to be responsible for any hits on that Journal link.

I'm not just referring to the televisation of it, that's a grey area I haven't decided on yet (the fact that there's no jury is in its favour) but the fact that TheJournal are reporting he vomited upon hearing the autopsy is disgusting to me. How is that news?

It's a huge case that a lot of people are interested in but the media are trying to turn every little thing into a story, and reporting on every witness. There isn't going to be actual news on this story until the verdict is in.

...

I'm overreacting slightly because thankfully it's easy enough for me to ignore but that journal story appeared on my fb newsfeed and it just annoyed me so much I had to vent

Luicefer the Second

Regardless of the consequences I would refuse on principle to give evidence in a court case which was being televised.

DannieHasABrazilian wrote: »

I think all court cases should be televised..

All


You do realise that most court hearings are open to any member of the public who is a big enough busybody has enough of an interest in an either an individual case of how the courts system works generally to get off their @r$€; to go along and attend ?