it would show anyone thinking about commiting a crime what would happen to them if they did >:)
I believe that criminal trials should be televised to allow the public to see how our legal system operates. Because many television shows present the legal system in an exciting, glamorous way, the public can be misled about what really goes on in a courtroom. Although it does run the risk of making the defendants into pop culture icons, our society already allows certain criminals a degree of celebrity, and I don't think the impact of filming the actual trial will rival that of the media circus surrounding the court proceedings. Being able to see the reality of court is a good learning experience.
One of the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution is that of a public trial. What type of trial can be more public than on television? By having trials televised, we are opening up the justice process for the world to see. With the knowledge that people are watching, all participants will be encouraged to play their parts in the most responsible manner. And, should there be a breach of justice, the world will be there to see and report.
Currently, in the U.S. legal system criminal trials that do not involve celebrities or incredible atrocities are fairly low-key. It is very difficult to follow smaller criminal trials as there is little published information available. By televising these criminal trials more individuals could see and understand how the criminal justice system works as well as the probable outcome of certain crimes. These broadcasts could reduce the crime rate by making examples easy to find of criminals who were punished for various crimes. Any evidence that criminals do not always get out of their charges would help lower the crime rate and perhaps prevent juveniles from turning to a life of crime.
It is a good idea to televise criminal trials for several reasons. First, this gives viewers an understanding of the justice system and the way courts work. Second, it provides information about serious issues or circumstances. Third, they are entertaining. Fourth, they cater to the natural human tendency to be voyeuristic.
Most of the time court cases are enjoyable to see. Many soaps and dramas are just as "violent" as court cases.
My son and his girlfriend are both currently studying for his debating GCSE's and being able to watch a court case would really help them to understand the test better.
Criminal trials should be televised so that the public is well-informed. If the defendant is exonerated, the facts would be there, and the public would know why and what happened. If the defendant is convicted, the public knows why, and a televised conviction adds to the defendants humiliation. The prospect of a televised trial may actually act as a deterrent to the commission of crimes.
The criminal justice system is diseased. Many judges will intentionally influence the outcome of a trial by verbally attacking the defendant and their attorney in front of the jury and make threats if defense council asks for it to be recorded. Privacy is pointless, people will find out anyways, better to take the "nothing to hide approach". If you have been accused you can more publicly defend yourself. If you did it and there is damning evidence, well you should have thought of that before you did it.
I myself had my own "good ol' boy" lawyer argue against my case make sure he had leverage to force me to accept plea instead of having to go to a trial for the same rate when I was too effective at destroying the prosecutor’s case by expressing outrage at all the bogus claims made by the officer witness (He didn't even know where the events took place).
We need more defenses against corruption.
Trials are a matter of public interest as well as public record. The "State" represents "The PEOPLE of the XYZ State" vs "ABC Defendant". The public ARE the people. In essence, WE the Public are putting one of our fellow citizens on trial to judge them and determine their responsibility in the crime. WE the people make up the jury. WE the public do not consist merely of a Prosecutor, Judge, Council and the number of spectators that can fit in a courtroom. While Trials shouldn't necessarily allow cameras from numerous media sources, I feel they should be made available on public broadcasting channels and live streaming.
The trial process is said to be open to the public. Generally, members of the public are allowed to sit in the courtroom and observe the proceedings. Not everyone can go to the courthouse to view the trial. So, having the trial televised gives more people the opportunity to see the proceedings.
Once a trial has begun there is no reason that it should not be televised. Some may have concern info would reach the jury, but if we operated as we should all juries would be sequestered to prevent them from seeing news of the trial. Additionally, if we aren't able to view what occurs in a court room, how do we feel secure in it being a fair, just system?
trials should be televised cause it would show the public and other people what happens when you commit certain crimes.
I have had my fare share of criminal trials and they where televised , my 16 year old nephew has not been in trouble with anyone. each time he tells me i don't want to get in trouble cause the judge is scary and its not worth it. So yes criminal trials should be televised cause it deters youths away from crime
Lets have a little look for criminals and citizens. For criminals it will be dissuasive. As a criminal, he or she will think about what happens after it. İf she or he makes a crime it will be seen by everybody and after prison I can't go anywhere. I can't work in anywhere. I can't buy anything from anywhere because they are going to memorize me. For citizens they will get awareness. İf I see a criminal trial I will not work with him. I can't trust him and will be doubtful and more careful about him or her.
In concordance with the question, I agree that criminal trials should be televised. I feel that people would want to check out these trials on television, so that they can see what happens during a trial. The most important aspect, obviously, has to be whether the suspect is guilty or not guilty. With the magic of television, we can watch criminal trials to see what happens during a trial. In my opinion, we should watch criminal trials on television, so that we can better understand what a court case is like.
Criminal trials should not be televised because although we are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, there is nothing in the constitution saying the trials must be made public. Any of the participants in a trial which is being broadcast are aware they're being watched. Being aware you're being watched very well could alter the behaviour of those involved. Lawyers could be more concerned with celebrity, and so could judges. Televised trials can be turned into a free-for-all with people wanting to get attention, and it takes away from the purpose of the trial which is to find a person guilty or innocent.
People have a right to privacy. Media has a way of swaying public opinion one way or another, and the only result would be masses of uninformed people voicing their opinions on matters about which they have no expertise. Lives of innocent people would be ruined if public opinion decided they were guilty even though a jury found them innocent due to lack of evidence. This should absolutely be prevented from happening.
Criminal trials are a very serious matter and not something to be slapped on TV as entertainment for the masses. People can hear the outcomes of trials, and I think can gain access to records of trials and that should be enough. Broadcasting a trial on TV could endanger certain people who may prefer that their identities remain secret. For example if a high profile 'criminal' was found not guilty, the jury members may fear for themselves if their identity is shown to the public.
The reason that jurors are not supposed to know the facts of a case is so that personal judgment will not affect their job as a juror, to judge the facts. Televising a trial cheapens the entire judicial system by making it a spectacle, and will open up the media to scrutinizing the defendant, the plaintiff/prosecutor and the facts of the case. A trial is a controlled social situation to allow for fairness and justice, and if it becomes a TV show, there is no point in even doing it.
Just look at what happened to the Casey Anthony trial. And, the OJ Simpson trial. And, now, the Jody Arias trial is going on for MONTHS and the dollar cost to the AZ taxpayers that is inexcusable!! The exposure of televising trials is probably good for the network, but unfair with regard to actual justice.
This is not because of the mere fact that trials are televised, but is due to the reality of all the opinion that surrounds the broadcasts. If the trials were broadcast live but without all the commentary then people would be less influenced by those like Nancy Grace who would seek to turn public opinion one way or the other. Even if trials were never televised, however, I would fully support recording of the court proceedings for internal court use (and for judicially-selected excerpts to be allowed for use during a news package reporting on the trial).
The media coverage in big trials creates a business out of crime. Criminals can profit from victims' suffering, by selling interviews, photos, books, film rights later. Spectators following the trials become addicted and obsessed by the twisted circumstances. Confidential info is exposed, and can lead to a wrong verdict. Stop the madness!
Crimes are not "made for TV movies" or reality shows. I think TV trials cheapen the Justice System. Trials should be a private matter. I think TV tries to make money and the defendant hopes to get movie deal. I have watched some of the Jodie Arias trail and it looks like a TV show. Casey Anthony was the same.
Televising criminal trials makes the system unjust by corrupting what should be an objective review of facts. Judges, jurors and attorneys end up playing for the camera when they should be concentrating on the case. Televising trials is not justified by keeping the process transparent. The downside of corrupting the process offsets the benefits of keeping the people informed of the process.
It's innocent until proven guilty in this country and I believe that's as it should be. Televising court cases for entertainment can damage an innocent person's reputation. I think the defendant should be determined %100 guilty before any news is released about any trial. I believe that most people in this country would agree.
At the moment, HLN is illustrating why cameras absolutely do not belong in capital cases. All the coverage resembles a public lynching. We need Nancy Grace and Jane V. And Dr. Drew, these unprofessional hacks, to stop turning a serious event into a circus of horrors. This jury should have been sequestered. Barring that, there should not have been a single camera present.
The public would have made up its own mind of the person's guilt. Even if the defendant was decided to be innocent, the public would assume a great miscarriage of law has occurred and make the defendant a public enemy. The public is too used to criminal shows such as Law & Order, NCIS, and CSI where the bad guy always gets caught. But that's not always the case. The system isn't perfect but I charge you to come up with a better one.
As a general rule cameras and video recording devices aren't allowed inside court rooms during court proceedings for the basic reason that peoples rights still need to be respected even if they broke the law. People have a right to privacy. Just because you broke a rule does not take that away. There are trials that are open to the public and if someone is truly interested in a case they should go to the court and watch it. It is wrong to televise a trial with out the consensus for those involved.
Cameras create a false environment in which all participants --- judge, jury, defendant, witnesses, etc. Are conscious that their "performances" will be broadcast to a large portion of the public. Such scrutiny may unfairly and/or inadvertently influence and determine the outcomes of the proceedings. Media interests can also influence proceedings by creating sensational appeals for cases they have a vested financial interest in covering.
Televised trials should only be allowed to take place if everyone participating agrees. That includes the defendant, who is innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely an invasion of privacy that serves the public no added benefit. I think that allowing the public to see recorded trials is acceptable if there is a guilty verdict.
I don't think criminal trials should be televised because everyone is presumed innocent initially and it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt, so these people are not criminals at the point of the trial though a lot of people will assume so just because they are on trial. Also, when people see these people on TV, they will all think they are guilty.
I know I would like to be put on trial, while being "innocent until proven guilty" to have Nancy Grace screaming like a seagull that swallowed some indigestion tablets about how I should burn in the eternal flames of damnation. Seems like it makes total sense.
It does raise the question as to who should receive the advertisement money spent on the program, though. Should the judges get a cut?