Anyone who thinks this is a good idea will be quickly cured by watching 5 minutes of Entertainment Tonight...or indeed, most local news broadcasts.
I'm very much against censorship and think the 1st Amendment is one of the cornerstones of American life, but in a few matters I am unable to shake off my European upbringing. One is Court TV shows like Judge Judy where they re-enact small claims hearings for entertainment purposes. Another is mugshots and 'perp walks' released to or conducted for the media when someone is arrested. While the suspect very often turns out to be the right person, I'm just horrified by the fact that someone can be identified and displayed publicly as a prisoner before they've even been arraigned and entered a plea. It creates a presumption of guilt among the general public and (IMHO) is a direct cause of lawyers following up by holding press conferences and making statements designed to sway 'the court of public opinion'.
Public opinion occasionally yields treasures like the Declaration of Independence, but is equally enthusiastic about everything from riots to the idea of buying a pet rock. Excuse my cynicsm...this topic brings out my grumpy elitist like few others!
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
*
Regardless of our respective opinions on the matter, I don't see an [honest] interpretation of the above which gives the court (a) legislative power to (b) abridge the freedom of the press [within it's on courtrooms].
It can't be fear of pre-trial publicity: Major trials are front-page news, with or without a video feed, and the days of the blissfully ignorant jury pool are long gone.
It can still be fear of exacerbating an existing problem. That said, would this be mitigated by only allowing release of the footage after everything is over?
Perhaps having live streams of trial courts might not be the right idea(1), but if we can't videotape trial courts, I definitely think appeals courts should have A/V access. In large part, appeals courts are where the law is "decided," versus the outcome of a case impacting, usually, a single person. The actions, decisions, and debate found in appellate courts (including the Supreme Court of the U.S., as well as the highest courts in a given state) should be widely available. The Supreme Court's practice of not immediately releasing audio recordings of certain high-profile cases, but selectively releasing them in others, is troubling to me.
1 - Editorial: I think that all courts should have live A/V feeds automatically available, except in cases involving a minor or a victim of a sexually-related crime.
Are good artists prohibited from drawing in courtrooms? I'm not familiar with the rules, so I'm curious if a photo realistic artist could draw the scene.
Courtroom artists serve exactly that function - to sketch the scene in courtrooms where cameras are not allowed, for distribution through the news media. I'm not sure what the trend is but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a waning profession, given increasing number of courts that allow photography/video.
In 1965...[the Supreme] Court found that cameras had a prejudicial impact on pre-trial publicity, affected the truthfulness of witnesses, and generally impacted (negatively) a defendant's fair-trial rights.
2 paragraphs later, without even trying to tackle any of these 3 points:
[+] [-] anigbrowl|15 years ago|reply
I'm very much against censorship and think the 1st Amendment is one of the cornerstones of American life, but in a few matters I am unable to shake off my European upbringing. One is Court TV shows like Judge Judy where they re-enact small claims hearings for entertainment purposes. Another is mugshots and 'perp walks' released to or conducted for the media when someone is arrested. While the suspect very often turns out to be the right person, I'm just horrified by the fact that someone can be identified and displayed publicly as a prisoner before they've even been arraigned and entered a plea. It creates a presumption of guilt among the general public and (IMHO) is a direct cause of lawyers following up by holding press conferences and making statements designed to sway 'the court of public opinion'.
Public opinion occasionally yields treasures like the Declaration of Independence, but is equally enthusiastic about everything from riots to the idea of buying a pet rock. Excuse my cynicsm...this topic brings out my grumpy elitist like few others!
[+] [-] gills|15 years ago|reply
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. *
Regardless of our respective opinions on the matter, I don't see an [honest] interpretation of the above which gives the court (a) legislative power to (b) abridge the freedom of the press [within it's on courtrooms].
[+] [-] kd0amg|15 years ago|reply
It can still be fear of exacerbating an existing problem. That said, would this be mitigated by only allowing release of the footage after everything is over?
[+] [-] epochwolf|15 years ago|reply
I'd recommend only releasing the footage if the person was found guilty.
[+] [-] techsupporter|15 years ago|reply
1 - Editorial: I think that all courts should have live A/V feeds automatically available, except in cases involving a minor or a victim of a sexually-related crime.
[+] [-] nym|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoved|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmanser|15 years ago|reply
In 1965...[the Supreme] Court found that cameras had a prejudicial impact on pre-trial publicity, affected the truthfulness of witnesses, and generally impacted (negatively) a defendant's fair-trial rights.
2 paragraphs later, without even trying to tackle any of these 3 points:
Why, then, the ban?
Um, read your own story man.
[+] [-] lucybecker|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]