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 There are outdated words that used since Japanese colonial era.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
it would show anyone thinking about commiting a crime what would happen to them if they did >:)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They shouldn't be televised or recorded as a tape, because it embarrasses the criminal and it gives people a right to make fun of them or harass them. They should only televise celebrities because people would go crazy if they don't. I really believe it is wrong to put the criminal on the spot and criticize them, it is wrong.
Anymore every time I turn on the television, all I see on these so called "news" networks like, CNN, HLN, Fox News and others, are the criminal trials of this weeks offenders. Nancy Grace is a great example of a new age inquisitor. She is ready to burn the defendants at the stake , in most cases , long before she has enough evidence to do so. She has already had to publicly apologise for some of her past witch hunts. In many cases these witch hunts destroy the lives of defendants who are found not guilty later such as George Zimmerman. The man has his life threatened probably on a daily basis. I can't help but think that if the media was not allowed to cover these trials there wouldn't be so much of this guilty until proven innocent mentality that the country has now in regard to these trials (which is completely against what our founding fathers intended when they penned our constitution I might add) It is not the general public's place to determine if these defendants are guilty or not. That is the judge and jury's place. Honestly I believe it none of my, any of your, or anyone else's business except those that are directly involved in the trial. Someone who lives in new York has absolutely no need to know what is happening in a trial in California or vice versa. I also believe that it is no coincidence that we see news about a school shooting in Nevada and 3 days later they find a body of a dead teacher in Massachusetts and have a 14 year old in custody for the shooting. I honestly believe that all of the instant media coverage does is create copy cats, and as we know everyone is looking for their 15 minutes of fame no matter of its good attention or bad.We as a people need to quit blaming tv, video games, and music for the lack of proper paranting going on in our country today, quit being lazy and be real parents to our children. Take these trials off the air permanently never to be allowed back on! Stop hiding behind behind free speech and freedom of the press. Those are tired and retarded arguments. WAKE UP AMERICA!
Most people do these actions because of the past and don’t think of the future where as others do it for the fun. E.G thefts may steal for a number of reasons whether it's for revenge in need for food etc. But i think that people that break the law should be charged depending on the amount of times they've broken the law
The media misrepresents and sensationalises everything, it seems hardly ethical to make money off misery, or allow it to - so leave the media OUTSIDE, this is not reality TV but people's lives, and most often someone died.
This is not Asia. Don't let your media become like theirs where life has so little meaning you can flip channels and see people getting killed and dying.
People form opinions based on what they watch. Viewers may feel more entitled to judge the defendants, dismissing the authority of the jury. In a country with millions of viewers, it's reasonable to predict some viewers will try to exert their own justice.
Judges, lawyers, juries, may all alter their behaviour knowing the number of viewers. Lawyers have an interest in attracting more and/or wealthier clientele and may attempt to appeal to such viewers through their conduct, e.g. making arguments which appeal to certain demographics. The potential for celebrity status may also affect all parties to in the courtroom.
Televising turns a court case into a circus event. Jurors have the potential to write a celebrity book, and it could affect the outcome. The Canadian system does not allow any court pictures and as a result our justice system is a much fairer system. We don't create celebrity lawyers, and the case is not pre-decided by television viewers. Our system does allow the public and the press to attend in the court room.
Creates segregation in a world where we are trying to get rid of segregation. People take sides, instead of working together. Social media becomes the jury. The real issue is over-looked because people can't see past the exterior... Whether the exterior is white, black, Asian, Indian... Gay or straight... Religious or not... Etc... Why some cases but not others of similar circumstances? Shame on you TV Networks.
I'm tired of this Zimmerman thing, it's just another puppet reality show to keep America entertained--worse things happen everyday and I don't see those being broadcasted on tv--if you're trying to prove there are racial issues in the U.S. That have yet to be resolved, and that we're still behind and ignorant about issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration and such, that's a fact, I don't need a reality show to explain what is already obvious nor do I feel it's correct for news channels to be profiting from viewers in this way, it's just sad.
Once a trial is televised, too many people become attached to the outcome. If a person if found not guilty based on the evidence or lack of it to prove guilt, the person on trial is never free again. Too many people want "justice" - but what they appear to want is the jury to agree with their stance.
I just think that a 'fair' trial should allow the person to go free if found "not guilty". I am not in agreement with the verdict in the Zimmerman trial, however I am very displeased with people clamoring for justice. It's over. We need to move on and leave Zimmerman to his own life.
I do believe that race plays a role in determining guilt or lack of guilt, and that also disturbs me.
I don't believe that trials should be televised because why should society get involved into someone else's case. Once society gets involved it no longer is just a trial, it's also a way for news channels to get feed. Trials are a serious matter and should not be turned to T.V. channels for the public to view for fun. The victims of the trial should have the option to keep the trial public or not.
Trials should never be televised to the public as it not only invading the defendant's privacy, but it also violates the privacy of the judge, the prosecution team, the defense team, and other officials that are involved in determining the criminal's fate. All countries with proper trials are mainly democratic, and the laws state that all citizens and people have rights. However, the violation of privacy is simply ruining a person's rights, which should be determined as a very immoral thing to do. It basically transforms a person's fate to public entertainment.
Unlike a public trial a televised trial is a form of entertainment for the public. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of a speedy and public trial. It is doubtful the Framers meant for it to be entertainment but rather a safeguard of our rights. Today, the televised trials that always seem to be in the news are purely for ratings for the networks and obviously is a form of entertainment for the viewing public. As I right this the Zimmerman trial is ongoing. It this case, one person lost their life and another's freedom hangs in the balance and it has basically devolved into cheap entertainment for reality TV. I think it is sickening.
Televising trials turns them into a media circuses rather than the appropriate workings of our legal system. Knowing one is "on camera" has an unknown effect on the testimony of witnesses for prosecution and defense. As these influences can be subtle, the effects often fly under the radar of the" proper" courtroom officials. The public is often a poor judge of the events unfolding on TV, thus incorrectly influencing their perspectives re society, the law, and the individuals under observation.
We should emulate countries like the United Kingdom, where "contempt of court regulations restrict the media's reporting of legal proceedings after a person is formally arrested"
In the U.S., the media's speculation of guilt or innocence made by TV journalists, who may or may not even have legal training, is just that ~~ speculation... But they state it frequently as if it were fact, pronounce judgments, and the pubic restate their conclusions as if they were the absolute truth. Hopefully, jurists do not learn of the "speculations" and "judgments" ; and, hopefully, there is no "hung jury" because the ability to get an unbiased jury would be unlikely.
I am tired of TV anchors giving their opinions of what evidence is stated by anyone who testifies.
It is not like the attorneys don't get feedback on what is said on the TV networks of MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and Court TV. Where they get some of the guests from to analyze what has been said is a mystery to me. Some seem to be idiots. It is true the people have the right to know but they can attend the trial if they are so interested. I am afraid that all these opinions affect the outcome, not by the jury but by the prosecutor or defense attorneys.
Televising a case real time can cause unnecessary problems, particularly those where there is a possible race related issue (Rodney King, OJ Simpson, for example). Public opinion can be used in a cohesive manner if the public is allowed to see or know about the proceedings real time. Once the case is complete and the decision has been made, the case could be made available, but only after a specific time period has elapsed. Otherwise, what's the point in having a jury?
First, it does not give people a realistic view of what the justice system is like because very, very few cases ever go to trial. Second, the only cases currently being televised are celebrities or sensational stories. Third, it would glorify crime, and it could actually teach criminals how to circumnavigate the law by showing what evidence is put on at trial/what elements need to be met.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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!