View Poll Results: Should court cases automatically televised?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    2 5.56%
  • No.

    24 66.67%
  • Only if they meet a certain level of concern

    10 27.78%
Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    The Undying Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    38,285

    Should court cases be automatically televised?




    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?
    "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  2. #2
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    1,842
    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.

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    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

  5. #5
    Nope. Unless there’s an actual vested public interest they shouldn’t be. We should also do away with juries.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  6. #6
    The Insane PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    19,633
    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.

  7. #7
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,033
    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.
    -------
    Quotes of the month:
    Man errs as long as he strives. - JWVG
    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - C Doyle
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to pre-determine the future.

  8. #8
    The Undying Gehco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FEEL THE WRATH OF MY SPANNER!!
    Posts
    31,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post



    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.
    Stuff can be fixed, just get enough glue or duct tape!
    Roses are red, mana is blue. Suramar Guards, Will always find you!

  9. #9
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    15,359
    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.

  10. #10
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,544
    Do it like Netflix and only put it up after it's all done. No real problem for me that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

  11. #11
    Immortal Templar 331's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    7,673
    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.

  12. #12
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    22,464
    Only if they did them on PBS and the donors paid for it. I would have zero interest in watching them however.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  13. #13
    The Insane PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    19,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Acidbaron View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Televising is outdated. Make video and audio recordings of trials available online.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LilSaihah; 2019-11-11 at 12:57 AM.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  15. #15
    Only after a verdict have been reached

  16. #16
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Rustedsaint View Post
    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.
    -------
    Quotes of the month:
    Man errs as long as he strives. - JWVG
    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - C Doyle
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to pre-determine the future.

  17. #17
    Merely a Setback Queen of Hamsters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    In New Austin... or thereabouts.
    Posts
    25,026
    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.
    Hamsters will rule The World!

  18. #18
    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.

  19. #19
    The Insane PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    19,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Low Hanging Fruit View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    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...!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •