Should most trials be televised?

Theta · 18-03-2010 05:06PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:07PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:10PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:14PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:19PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:20PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:23PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:27PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:28PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:32PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:32PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:34PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:44PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:51PM

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 · 18-03-2010 05:55PM

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 · 18-03-2010 06:04PM

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 · 18-03-2010 06:17PM

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 · 18-03-2010 06:19PM

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 · 18-03-2010 07:23PM

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 · 18-03-2010 10:11PM

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.

Biggins · 18-03-2010 10:14PM

randomuser77 wrote: »

...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.

I agree somewhat in what your saying but don't the media thru the papers, etc, do that already anyway?

I personally think SOME national cases should be broadcast - but only after "Guilty" verdicts have been rendered.

Mike 1972 · 18-03-2010 10:30PM

Should most trials be televised?

Well if they did there would be enough content for a dedicated channel (probably several in fact) are you seriously suggesting there is a need for trials in Ballygobackwards district court to be on national television.

If people really want to see our courts in action they can always get up off their fat @r$€; and go down to the public gallery and watch to their hearts content.

Televising trials would throw up all sorts of privacy issues though. Not just for defendants but for Plaintiffs, witnesses, jurors, anyone else involved too.

Personally I would refuse to give evidence or sit on a jury in a televised trial

ScumLord wrote: »

But what if your living on the other side of the country.

Every county and most major towns have a courthouse.

ScumLord wrote: »

Making people go to the court house does guarantee that most members of the public won't see the trial.

Having it on TV doesnt gurantee most people would see it either. Very few TV programmes get 50% viewing figures (or anything like it). Most people wouldnt have the time or interest to sit through a full trial. The preceedings would have to be edited to the point of meaninglessness to fit the average persons attention span.

Bambi wrote: »

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

Why should your neighbours thirty year old conviction for 51 in a 50 zone to be any of your business ? Especially since youve undoubatedly gotten away with worse yourself.

sron · 18-03-2010 10:33PM

Biggins wrote: »

I agree somewhat in what your saying but don't the media thru the papers, etc, do that already anyway?

I personally think SOME national cases should be broadcast - but only after "Guilty" verdicts have been rendered.

Your idea regarding the recording of all trials only for those containing guilty verdicts to be broadcast ignores the possibility of such a recording being linked to the media. Therein lies its weakness.

The fact is that what happens inside the courts of law is not the public's business. Go read something if you're bored, people.

randomuser77 · 18-03-2010 10:33PM

Biggins wrote: »

I agree somewhat in what your saying but don't the media thru the papers, etc, do that already anyway?

The difference is that when you're reading something you're more likely to analyse the details properly. The material has less of an emotive effect. However, if you're watching someone making a convincing (but fake) testimony, you would be inclined to get carried away with the emotion. If the media focus on that (as they would as it's more sensational), then you won't get a balanced view.

Biggins wrote: »

I personally think SOME national cases should be broadcast - but only after "Guilty" verdicts have been rendered.

SOME cases maybe. It would have to be quite limited though. If witnesses believed that they were going to end up on TV then this will act as a deterrent to presenting yourself as a witness.

All in all though, I fail to see the benefit. People just won't watch it. The same way that people don't watch Oireachtais Report. Even if they do, most of the case is procedure and a lot of it is steeped in legalese. It'd be largely incomprehensible to a lay person.

Unless we had case pundits ... :pac:

lugha · 18-03-2010 11:10PM

randomuser77 wrote: »

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.

But your hypothetical situation is pretty much what our current state of play is. Unfortunately, if you are accused of a serious crime then you are likely to be tainted for life, even if you are acquitted. That is an unfortunate consequence of our requirement of having publicly administered justice even with no cameras in court.
Surely logic demands that we go one way or the other. Either prohibit the publishing of a defendants name until he is convicted (although that would have limited impact in this “everyone knows everyone” country) or give the public full access. At least in the latter case attempts by the media to spin a case one way or the other could be easily exposed. Or current approach of justice being a little bit public doesn’t make any sense to me.

lugha · 18-03-2010 11:14PM

sron wrote: »

The fact is that what happens inside the courts of law is not the public's business.

Ah, but it is. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. It is the public who must see it being done.

Biggins · 18-03-2010 11:17PM

sron wrote: »

Your idea regarding the recording of all trials only for those containing guilty verdicts to be broadcast ignores the possibility of such a recording being linked to the media. Therein lies its weakness.

The fact is that what happens inside the courts of law is not the public's business. Go read something if you're bored, people.

Again, good points from both sides to the argument.

"The courts of law is not the public's business" Really?
I though the law of the land was in every ones business - and it should be their business to see that its carried out and done!
Otherwise... "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" and allows them to have free reign more so with some harmful consequences due to human nature.

Dyr · 18-03-2010 11:18PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why should your neighbours thirty year old conviction for 51 in a 50 zone to be any of your business ? Especially since youve undoubatedly gotten away with worse yourself.

a thirty year old conviction won't show up though will it? His current conviction for assault, however, is my business

Conviction details are already in the public domain, we need to start using that data to give people a picture of what crimes and criminals are happening in their neighborhood. How many dickheads out there are going to risk being convicted of drink driving offences if they know that any future employers or clients will have access to that information?

sron · 18-03-2010 11:32PM

Biggins wrote: »

Again, good points from both sides to the argument.

"The courts of law is not the public's business" Really?
I though the law of the land was in every ones business - and it should be their business to see that its carried out and done!
Otherwise... "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" and allows them to have free reign more so with some harmful consequences due to human nature.

It is; the interaction between the law and a private citizen, however, is not.

Also, here's a video recording of justice not being done, and despite being widely broadcast, no one was held accountable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRth45yU_2Q&feature=related

ScumLord · 19-03-2010 01:05AM

randomuser77 wrote: »

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.

I don't see why people should have to waste all that time and resources in a digital age. We have the means and technology to enlighten the public but we're keeping it out of their reach.

I believe that all information and knowledge should be open to all people, they should be able to learn the law online sit in on court online. Obviously some cases would be to sensitive to put on the website for anyone to see put if it's a court case where you can walk in off the street you should be able to view it online.

Antbert wrote: »

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

Not particularly I'd just prefer the option of being able to. This is a digital age and we should take full advantage of it.

Should most trials be televised?

Comments