Are we ready to live in a world that utilizes courtrooms for entertainment? Apparently so because it’s already happening. Civil cases are sensationalized for TV through shows such as Judge Judy and others like it; Court TV dedicates a whole channel for such spectacles. As a society we have come to expect the scandalous and melodramatic so much that we cannot recognize how the media has made a mockery out of courtrooms. By allowing cameras into civil courtrooms, we have stripped them of their respectability. If this media charade continues, it is only time before we expose federal and Supreme court hearings to the same perversion.
The media has a fundamental right to discuss and explore cases, but a line needs to be drawn before it impedes on a defendants’ rights to a fair trial, if it has not already done so. I cannot deny the vast advantages of the media on the judicial system. Without the needed scrutiny of the press, injustices such as the West Memphis Three or Jena Six would never have been exposed. However, I beseech you to realize that too much media access inhibits the system’s ability to impart justice. There is no way to restrict what the press chooses to publish or insure they do so without bias. Allowing cameras in courtrooms goes beyond the call of the 1st Amendment 's freedom of the press and obstructs the likelihood of a fair trial.
This conflict is no longer a state dilemma, but has become a national dispute; the Judicial Review Committee recently approved bills that would allow cameras in federal courts, which Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy fervently believe would “undermine substantive legal discussions.” Nearly all states prohibit cameras in sensitive cases—those involving juveniles, sex crimes, and, trade secrets. The sensitivity of those cases are no more than that of capital crimes such as murder. All defendants and victims should have that same right to privacy. According to Klaus Pohle, a media law teacher, “the only exception to an open legal system is when justice cannot be done other, generally meaning protection of a fair trial” and in my opinion fair trials cannot occur with cameras in our courtrooms.
12 comments:
I agree with you one hundred percent. I feel that the focus of a trial should be directed towards the sole goal of determining in a just and fair manner the guilt or innocence of the accused. I understand that we all want our daily dose of shock or whatever due to the most recent brutal crime, but that shouldn't ever come first when a person's life is on the line. I feel that by allowing the media to infiltrate the courtrooms it is making a mockery of the justice system and keeping people for fair trails. I feel that the media should only be allowed to participate in cases after they have reached their conclusion, therefore we can get all the information that we want without affecting the credibility of the trial.
Hey there...
Yes, I do agree that the media should be kept out as far as possible from the court room. And I was indeed appalled that media cameras were actually allowed in court of murder trials.
However, I think we need to be careful of a moral panic - simply creating fear about the media without enough proof. I think if you could somehow find our how many trials were actually affected by what the media said. Maybe some statistics or scientific study would help us get a clearer picture.
I think that the media really affects the jury. And so maybe the jury and the judge should be banned from any news about the trial they are judging. I know it seems impossible, but think about it, these are the only people that really decide the outcome of the trials. Wouldn't it be easier to control these few key people then control countless media reporters?
Nice topic though...
Great post. I completely agree with the things you stated in your post. I think that cameras being allowed in the courtroom is really detrimental to justice being administered properly. I think that the West Memphis 3 really demostrates the huge impact the media can have on the justice system. I think that cameras should only be allowed outside of the courtroom. Yet I also feel that it is important for people in the community when they watch the news should at least be able to see an update. Do you have any ideas on way to keep the public updated on cases without allowing the media to make a mockery of the justice system.
I agree with you on every point. Cameras in court cases are more than a little deterimental in cases. The media presence in many cases causes the public to come to certain conclusions about the trial pior, during, and post trials. That is problematic because sometimes the public can have an effect on the cases even after the outcomes are decided. In the O.J trial, the media practically started racial would war three in this country.
I think that the reason the media is so prevalent in court cases stems from this supposed right that the public feels they have to be in the "know". Honestly, i do't think that the public needs o have knowledge of all the things that they do. If the media is going to stay involved, then I think that they should only give information about the inital crimes and the verdict, but never the trial facts.
Thank goodness someone is talking about this topic. I think you make a valid point when discussing the issue of going past the first amendment. I think it's funny how the first amendment has the restriction that you can not scream "fire" when there isn't one because it could endanger people's lives. But is the media not endangering the right to a fair trial by reporting on it. One of the key faults in the media reporting on cases the way they do, is their crave for drama. Our society has turned into one where we want to see others fail, are we that insecure? But with that being said, the media is not allowing the trials to even start off on the right foot. With the amount of press these days it is hard to say that we are getting unbiased jurors in the courtrooms. The media is not just expressing their right to the first amendment, they are ruining one of the three branches our countries needs to live off of, the foundation of our country is at stake.
I also agree with this post. Cameras in court rooms are very detrimental to the case, and should not be allowed. The West Memphis Three documentary is a great example of the chaos it causes and how the camera can play a character up or down and can portray them however they want. However, I think it is important for the public to know what is happening in our world as well. I think it is going to be hard to balance these two things, but it needs to be done soon.
I agree with you for the most part. However, I think that live media streaming of a court proceeding could be good for the purpose of keeping the court true and honest.
Judge Judy is not an example of the media taking over a court, or making a mockery of a court. Judge Judy is a media creation. Judith Schindler is an arbitrator (although she does have the qualifications to be a judge) between two parties. The two parties are contractually bound to follow her ruling as agreed upon before joining the show.
My basic point is this. To say that Judge Judy is an example of a real courtroom being turned into a circus by the media is partially false as it never was a real courtroom to begin with. It was INVENTED by the media. What you are discussing is the media TAKING OVER a court. There is a bit of a diference. I dont think allowing the media to show a little bit of what is going on inside the court room has the potential to make our court system into a Judge Judy marathon.
I think your blog makes some interesting points. The points would be much more interesting if you explained them more or at least linked a website that explained them. For example, all the cases that you pose as questions would be influential in your argument...assuming the reader knew about these cases. Make links so that if someone doesn't know who Judge Ito is, information is just a click away. I think your discussion of both the positive as well as negative impacts of the courtroom filming is enlightening to the viewer. It shows you are unbiased, yet realize how much the negatives can outweigh the benefits. Maybe enhance the writing but adding more on the relationship media in the courtroom has to the violation of the first amendment. I think this could be really interesting, but go deeper with the thoughts.
You pose a very interesting potential solution of ridding cameras from the courtroom. However, the balance between taking cameras out of the courtroom and the freedonm of press becomes unclear. Make this relationship more clear and support it with a possible example. Also try to cut down on the amount of questions you pose in the post. By posing questions you are encouraging the reader to think. However, you are not drawing your own opinions and analysis of the subject into your post. Make the post more personal.
Since I know the cases that you're referring to, I absolutely understand your argument. I think that anyone reading it would get the clear picture; however, Judge Ito is not an extrmemly recoginzable character. Most people don't know the judge by name. You might want to make certain that people are following that he is the judge from the Simpson trial. Add more causal relationship between how the media in the courtroom could be a violation of the first amendment because most people think first amendemt and think "free press". They might assume that you're contradicting yourself even though I know you're not.
I think that you make an excellent arguement but need to add definitions. For example, you might want to talk about Judge Ito and explain who he is or add a link that explains it. Also, you should make links to the media in the court room and the First Amendment and how this could violate our rights. The questions you pose are also good, however I think you should try to elaborate on them.
I'm wasn't say that Judge Judy is completely real and accurate; I was just using that example because it's more of a well-known name of that type of courtroom. There's no denying the numerous shows on Court TV that are real and have the same format as Judge Judy. My point was that if you ever watch any of those shows, the trial circus is along the same lines as O.J. Simpson trial, if not worst. And it is a mockery of civil courts, because even if Judge Judy is an "imitation" what does it say about how much we respect our civil courts? In my opinion not very much because most if not all of those shows are about sensationalism, not law or justice.
Post a Comment