Amazon.com Widgets
  • Court proceedings are a right of public information.

    In every city there is a police blotter which list crimes that occur within the city. At the court house, there is a notification section which lists the proceedings of the day. Unless it is a highly publicized case, any citizen can walk in and observe the trial in progress. It is our right as citizens within this society to know what is happening and how it is being handled by our elected officials. Ironically, we go to the polls to elect judges that we know nothing about in regards to their history of judgment and how they will best assist our community with the issues within it.

  • It is Real Life

    Being able to see a real trial instead of the fake trials on all of the television shows would be a very educational thing for everybody. Now if that was the only reason then I would say that may not be enough, but taking what the 6th Amendment has to say makes it not only something that is interesting to watch but something that the men who wrote the Constitution wanted people to be able to see.

  • It is best for Defendant

    I believe that the defendant is the one that is the most important person when it comes to who's rights to protect the most in a trial. For that reason the defendant should be able to rely on the camera in the courtroom. If the defendant does not want that then his lawyer can make a motion before the start of the trial asking the judge not to allow it.

  • Yes, for sure.

    The Constitution states very clearly that trials should be public and for a very good reason. What happens behind closed doors in any government agency or department can be scary and there is no better way to make sure things are as honest as they can be by having the players know that anybody could and probably is watching.

  • Leave it up to the Judge

    I think it is usually up to the judge in the courtroom and in most cases it is what the judge decides that goes. I think that this way to do it is fine. The judge can hear arguements from both sides regarding whether they see any prejudicial affect of the cameras or not and then after hearing from both sides, along with the news media, the judge makes a decison. That is a good way to do it.

  • It should be up to the Defense

    Whether the trial gets television coverage or not or any cameras for that matter is something that should be up to the defense to decide. It is the defendant who has all of the rights affforded him so he/she should be able to be the one to decide whether to have them or not.

  • The U.S. Constitution

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" - Anybody know where this quote comes from?
    "Congress shall make no law...Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" - What about this quote?
    I think the clear intent of the writers of the U.S. Constitution would have been to allow cameras in the courtroom.

  • To Keep the Government Honest

    The government can really be dishonest in so many ways and we are seeing that more and more with police departments being equiped with body cameras and also with all the cell phone videos popping up. Being able to have access to the police testifying in court is very important. Lots of innocent people have been jailed based on the lies of the police.

  • It is better than all the fake crime dramas

    It is real life in action so why not take a look at the real world of trials instead of just watching something that is not real and often not based on anything that resembles reality in any way. The damage comes from all of these shows producing all sorts of myths.

  • It's Better Than Network T.V.

    When I have kids I would much rather that they watch a jury trial than most of the crap that they have on Network T.V. So putting this in perspective, what is the "problem" with watching the government and the institution that the Founding Fathers can be very proud of?? It is a "problem" if you would rather have your kid watching something like Breaking Bad ir many of the AMC and Network (and Netflix etc...) made for T.V. series'.

  • 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.

  • Just one judge

    If trials were televised then jury's would not be allowed as the jury maybe influenced by things said out of oath. The jury would be influenced by people with opinions formed around the televised trial. This would leave the verdict completely in the hands of the judge.This is too much of a risk. An example of this is the ocar pestaurious trial in which he only received 5years despite not having a leg to stand on!!

  • 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.


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