• Yes, criminals trials should be televised. It could act as a deterrent. It could be very beneficial in many aspects.

    This could teach young adults about the law and what the consequences could be if they break the law. It would be a very educational experience as well because it would give the people a better understanding of the judiciary system and it could very well ensure that the judge makes morally right and cautious decisions. It would keep us all informed of criminal activity better and this could teach us how to notice the potential crime and how to protect ourselves from being victimized.

  • "pistorius watches porn"

    Here is a quite apt headline from a News paper. What it shows is that the way we are shown criminal trials is often irrelevant to the actual case. As such televising trials, in particular high profile white collar cases as opposed to murder trials will allow the public to see how jury's actually reach their decisions without media swaying public opinion as earlier said headline was clearly intended to do. Additionally as a counter argument to sensationalising the court cases we could always model 'court T.V.' after parliament T.V. which if someone tells me is extremely interesting I'm just going to laugh. Thus general public is able to understand what's happening better in the justice systems as information is available. And the problem of sensationalising is easily dealt with.

  • Role Models OR Murderers

    The public need to know what's going on with one of our fellow citizens. WE the public make up the Jury, WE the public ARE important, WE the public need the knowledge. OUR role models, the people that we all try to belike are the people that are EVIL... Eg: Oscar & OJ, kids & elders looked up to them, and were proud to say THAT GUY IS FROM MY COUNTRY... The BEST basket ball player, the BEST blade runner... I left out that they are the BEST murderers.. This IS HARD for me to say as I Am a OSCAR fan, but this is a school project

  • I believe court cases should be televised.

    This would be great because it could be used as an extra tool for judges.
    I think it would give the public a better knowledge of what goes into court.The public will have a better confidence in the judging system.This overall would make the the judging system a lot more efficient.

  • Loved TRU tv

    Watched in session everyday and miss it very much. It was one of my favorite shows. I was very interested in our judicial system and I did learn a great deal from all the judges, defense attorneys and especially the the prosecutors. Best reality show on tv. I have really felt the loss of watching current trials.

  • News covering of crime does not corrupt a child's mind

    When we think of crime we hope your kids don't do such activities.If you think that crime is bad for the child's mind then you are wrong. Cartoons and soaps also have violence. Animated movies and hollywood movies are no less corrupting. It will also show children what one wrong action can lead to in the future. Like if u agree

  • Yes because of right to know, better understanding of judiciary system, discouragement of potential crime, and against-corruption

    1. By allowing the televising of the court cases, efficient and fair trials will be ensured. Televising means that many people will be able to access the court cases and also that they will be able to criticize the judges for engaging in a trial insincerely. There is a need of eliminating dictator judges from the court. Currently, according to the Korean ministry of law, 73 of 1500 monitors noticed the judges dozing off while the court case was going on. Also, 4% of the judges were noticed of frivolities. Also, Judge Alex Cozinsky of US court mentioned that judges are less likely to doze off from the presence of cameras, and the fact that it is being televised to the whole world causes them to make more cautious decisions.
    2. By allowing the televising of the court cases, people would know better of court cases discouragement of potential crimes. The showing of the cases would acknowledge the potential criminals of the treatment they will receive when they commit crimes and discourage them from doing it.
    3. Televising court cases would satisfy the broad range of people’s right to know. The right to know is a fundamental right all people have. And it should be given to all people. Chief Judge Yoon mentioned that the right to know is mentioned in the Constitution and it should be provided to all people. It is appropriate to allow televising almost the whole trial except some parts under the presiding judge’s allowance.
    People wonder what happens in the court regarding high-profile crimes, and they have the right to know. They should be able to know what happens during the trial. A written judgment is not enough. It is full of odd words and complicated sentence constructions. There are outdated words that used since Japanese colonial era. Sometimes, reporters who write articles about trials don’t fully understand the judgments. It DOESN’T satisfy people’s right to know.
    4. The effect of televising the court cases would allow people to know better of judiciary system and give them knowledge of law related issues. It is the way to enhance trust towards the justice system by making the court transparent and open.
    It is not easy to actually participate in a trial to know about the judiciary system. Compared to the number of people who want to know about the court, the available number of seats in the courtroom is too small. Eventually televising the court cases would increase chances to citizens to know better of trial procedures.
    It is also important because closed courts cannot be trusted. Sometimes courts are depicted in a very negative way in certain films, so people might misunderstand about actual justice system. Citizens should know the actual process and court should be trustworthy.
    Chief Judge Yoon said, “It is easy for anyone to be positive about things that they know well, and be negative and suspicious about things that they don’t know.” In this perspective, the court should be practically opened.

  • It's not only a moral lesson but also helps strengthening the prestige of one regime.

    Firstly, publicizing a trial provide an reliable, informative source of information about the commitment of the crime, why it violates the law, what sort of sentence it deserves,... Therefore, the punishment given may discourage the next offender from doing illegal business. Also, it's important that everyone should be well-informed about crime in order not to commit them unintentionally.
    Secondly, the clarity and truthfulness of a trial will help enhance the prestige of one regime, one government, which ultimately help boosting the development in many aspects of one society.
    That is my point of view.

  • Yes, Trials Should be Televised

    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.

  • It's fun to watch and it's a lot better than most soaps and/or dramas.

    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 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.

    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.

    Posted by: JeffP4ri5
  • I do not believe trials should be televised.

    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.

    Posted by: emililuyx2
  • People have a basic right to privacy.

    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.

    Posted by: FithBoosh
  • Criminal trials should not be televised, because they bring the public into a controlled social situation.

    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.

    Posted by: R053Neddy
  • I don't think criminal trials should be televised.

    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.

    Posted by: MycCra2ii
  • Televising criminal trials makes the system unjust.

    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.

    Posted by: R43Shep
  • One more step in reality television and the promotion of violence? no.

    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.

  • Witness identification and danger placement

    If a witness is called to the stand to testify it makes no problems for them but if the trial is televised and the defendant is found not guilty then the witnesses life is under danger. As well as if the witness is recognised by the defendants friends or family the life is in danger. That goes for any witness or judge or lawyer.

  • Witness identification and danger placement

    If a witness is called to the stand to testify it makes no problems for them but if the trial is televised and the defendant is found not guilty then the witnesses life is under danger. As well as if the witness is recognised by the defendants friends or family the life is in danger. That goes for any witness or judge or lawyer.

  • "Justice" is traditionally depicted as wearing a blindfold. Why?

    The figure of Justice is traditionally depicted as a woman holding a sword and a pair of scales, and wearing a blindfold. The symbolic importance of that blindfold should not be dismissed, even in the age of ultra-mass-media.

    As some of the arguments across the page in the "yes" column clearly show, the televised trial becomes more of a mass spectacle than a legal process. Yes - trials have long been reported, and I think reportage of the legal process is indeed an important guarantor of freedom.

    But TV camera broadcasting is a selective, consumer-focused process. We do not see the arguments in their entirety; we see what networks and editors want us to see. In general too we see what is most dramatic and most appalling, the scenes that will bring the commercial entities who are paying for the footage the most revenue, that will bring advertisers the most "hits."

    Most of us do not have much knowledge of the codifications of law, either - however strong our sense of justice or injustice. Our understanding of this, too, is piecemeal. So whatever our ego tells us about our "right" to an opinion, most of us are ill-qualified to make sensible judgements about the rights and wrongs of trials based on this episodic-at-best exposure and our slight grasp of the actual legal issues.

    Trials also expose those involved to minute human scrutiny. How people dress, how well they articulate, how convincingly they argue all are relentlessly exposed. Television turns the entire process into a kind of legal reality TV, where popularity and emotion become the main arbiters of opinion. Media attention outside the court cannot avoid distorting the legal process happening inside the courtroom, where it shouldn't matter if someone is ugly, or not very bright, or unfortunate in some other way - none of these things should matter before the law.

    If Justice is to have any chance in the 21st century, she needs to stay blind. Yes, in civil law the sun needs to shine inside the courtroom - but the process of televising spectacular criminal cases doesn't do this - it merely sells the participants to the highest bidder, turning them into entertainment fodder and robbing them of humanity, privacy and dignity.

    It doesn't strike me as a sign of increased civilisation or enlightenment that we do this - more that as a society we are retreating to an age where it's OK to throw people to the lions or bring a picnic to a hanging. Our appetite for consuming, as entertainment, the misery of others is an appalling condemnation of the degraded values of the society we're creating.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.