Should court cases be automatically televised?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Should court cases automatically televised?

Or in Other words.

Should court cases especially those of fundamental importance to people in general always be televised regardless to the nature of the case or situation, going even further, should it be a right of the citizenry as a whole?

The impeachment inquiry could be a kind of example but I am also talking about say the O.J Trial, or Casey Anthony, or a infamous serial killer.

Personally Yes, I say it should be a right and automatic even to the point judges aren't allowed to deny cameras in the courtroom.


What do you think and what is your position?

[Lynarii]

No. Court proceedings are generally public record that can be accessed after the fact, but court is NOT a reality TV show, and getting public opinion involved in court cases interferes with actually getting justice done.

[XDurionX]

Documented, yes, televised to the public, no.

The american system is more of a popularity contest than a proper trial anyway, adding public pressure into the mix wont do any good.

[rayvio]

it should be recorded yes, with the option of possibly being broadcast publicly at a later time, but not until after a verdict has been delivered

[PACOX]

Is the case open to the public? Will it be public record? Then yes it should be televised. Every municipality should have a CSPAN equivalent. It's 2019 so stream them on the local city website. Transparency should be championed when appropriate.

Don't worry, court cases are really boring and most people won't watch them.

[PC2]

Televising cases should be an option but I wouldn't say there should be any automatic streaming of court cases. Basically case proceedings should be verifable by any individual who wants to verify them but not simply plastered in a public place.

[Lochton]

Should court cases automatically televised?

Or in Other words.

Should court cases especially those of fundamental importance to people in general always be televised regardless to the nature of the case or situation, going even further, should it be a right of the citizenry as a whole?

The impeachment inquiry could be a kind of example but I am also talking about say the O.J Trial, or Casey Anthony, or a infamous serial killer.

Personally Yes, I say it should be a right and automatic even to the point judges aren't allowed to deny cameras in the courtroom.


What do you think and what is your position?

Only if they meet certain cases of concern. Mass murder, yes. Mass shooting, yes. Mass scammer, yes. High number of financial losses from people or the government, yes.

[Acidbaron]

No and i find the American examples given, makes court more about a place of vengeance rather than justice, you have several notions that are completely absurd that further high light the right of vengeance in your courts.

People are already too easily judged in the media, jury's are hard enough to keep from being influenced by the media and people want to put a spot light on it so that everyone even has a greater opinion on what a jury member should do. Good way to ruin a jury members life if you ask me, who isn't even on trial.

Privacy is low enough as it is, allow journalists in the room but ban all camera's and recording material. Including phone's.

[RaoBurning]

Do it like Netflix and only put it up after it's all done. No real problem for me that way.

[Templar 331]

No. We already have too much drama surrounding things that should be simple. The last thing we need is some reality T.V. show director pushing an angle.

Case in point: Judge Judy.

[Ghostpanther]

Only if they did them on PBS and the donors paid for it. I would have zero interest in watching them however.

[PACOX]

No and i find the American examples given, makes court more about a place of vengeance rather than justice, you have several notions that are completely absurd that further high light the right of vengeance in your courts.

People are already too easily judged in the media, jury's are hard enough to keep from being influenced by the media and people want to put a spot light on it so that everyone even has a greater opinion on what a jury member should do. Good way to ruin a jury members life if you ask me, who isn't even on trial.

Privacy is low enough as it is, allow journalists in the room but ban all camera's and recording material. Including phone's.

Court sessions are generally open with the press reporting the happenings of high profile cases anyway. Might as televise l/stream them to beat media spin.

[LilSaihah]

Televising is outdated. Make video and audio recordings of trials available online.

The impeachment inquiry could be a kind of example but I am also talking about say the O.J Trial, or Casey Anthony, or a infamous serial killer.

There's the problem with trying to decide whether things are 'fundamentally important', because the OJ Simpson trial and Casey Anthony aren't. Culturally, the OJ Simpson trial might be important, but it's nowhere near as important as the impeachment of a sitting President.
Record them all, make the files freely available, and let the people decide what to put on television or not.

[Rustedsaint]

Only after a verdict have been reached

[PC2]

Only after a verdict have been reached

Yeah, a judge/jury already knows to refrain from making a judgement until the very end. After both sides have made their full arguments. The typical viewer at home will probably judge the defendant after 1 day of trial. It's not really fair to have people judging the case from their living room, unless they also have access to all the evidence.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Of course not.

What a moronic sentiment that would lead to very real issues regarding safety and objectivity. The O.J trial is a shining example as to why it's a bad idea.
Recording trials for posterity behind closed doors, fine.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

It would only take.. what.. 70,000 channels wall to wall broadcasting to pull it off.. even as a major low ball guess. Sounds productive.

[PACOX]

It would only take.. what.. 70,000 channels wall to wall broadcasting to pull it off.. even as a major low ball guess. Sounds productive.

That's not how TV works. Your TV doesn't 70,000 separate channels for every local news station broadcasted across the country, does it? Let's say they want to broadcast court cases live, you'll most likely get your local circuit court - one channel. Then another statewide channel for the states supreme court, throw in one for the appellate courts if you want as well. Do people not have local public access channels already? Same deal.

TV is a bad medium though, would be better to just stream and archive it all on court websites.

[Daedius]

Ñnnnnnnno. And thankfully it ain't, because I managed to fuck up the vows taken as a Juror infront of the court and Jury pool area last week, only 100+ people...!

[Low Hanging Fruit]

That's not how TV works. Your TV doesn't 70,000 separate channels for every local news station broadcasted across the country, does it? Let's say they want to broadcast court cases live, you'll most likely get your local circuit court - one channel. Then another statewide channel for the states supreme court, throw in one for the appellate courts if you want as well. Do people not have local public access channels already? Same deal.

TV is a bad medium though, would be better to just stream and archive it all on court websites.

I think its safe to say "who cares" and I forgot to put /s on the end. I forget that some people actually debate things like this here. My apologies.