Debate theme

| Cameras in Courtrooms |
Summary: Should cameras be placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be televised? |
| | print this page |
| Discuss topic |
|
From www.idebate.org
  | Introduction |

  | Author:Rob Weekes ( United Kingdom ) Rob won the World Universities Debating Championships in 2002. |
Created: Tuesday, September 26, 2000
Last Modified: Sunday, April 12,2009 |

  | Context |

  | It is axiomatic in democratic society that everyone has access to the bodies that determine their rights and freedoms. We can watch the proceedings of parliament and of any court by attending in person. Yet, in Britain we can also watch the debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on terrestrial television. Why can we not watch the events in court inthe same way?In the United States well-publicised criminal trials are often televised, either as part of news reports or as the subject of separate documentaries. ‘Court TV’ is a channel dedicated to showing footage of the criminal justice system. Famously, the whole of the murder trial of O.J. Simpson was filmed and watched by an audience of millions. The lawyers and the judge becameinternational celebrities. When Louise Woodward, a British au pair, faced trial for murder in the United States, pictures of her courtroom appearances were transmitted in Britain. The public reaction was immense. A national media campaign raised thousands of pounds to pay for the legal costs of her defence and subsequent appeal. The emotive power of television pictures was largely responsible for thisoutpouring of public sympathy.This debate raises interesting issues concerning constitutional rights, discrimination and individual liberties. In order to avoid a less illuminating discussion of the actual mechanics of putting cameras into court, it is necessary to establish a typical model for any television coverage. A conventionally accepted plan would be that fixed cameras would film the whole ofthe proceedings in the courtroom. The faces of the jurors would not be shown. The cameras would not be used in trials that are already subject to restrictions on reporting or the presence of an audience, such as those that concern national security or the welfare of children. |

  | Arguments |

Pros | Cons |

| | |
In a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts.Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch a part or the whole of a trial, or appeal. In Britain the public are even allowed to attend the highest court in the land, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, just as anyone can watch the Supreme Court of the United States in session. There is therefore no constitutional reason why trials should not be televised. However, at the moment only afew people can take advantage of their rights. As courts sit during the week, it is difficult for people in full-time employment to watch a trial. Travelling to courts across the country is costly. The galleries for the public have only a limited number of spaces. Visitors to well- publicised trials often have to arrive several hours in advance of the hearing in order to ensure a seat. We should nothave to make such sacrifices of time and money in order to enjoy our democratic rights. In addition, the events in court are often difficult for non-lawyers to understand. Coverage on television could include a commentary that would make watching a trial a more profitable and educational experience. In the age of the television, and even the internet, we should utilise modern technology toenhance the rights of the citizens. | | There is a clear tension between the democratic right of the people at large to watch a trial, and the liberty of the defendant in any given case. It is a fundamental precept of many legal systems that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. By showing the defendant on television, the general public will be able to reach conclusions about guilt or...