Do Cameras in Courtrooms Distort Trial Process - Essay Example

?Cameras in Court Rooms: Do they Distort the Trial Process Introduction The representation of order and law in the media has for a long time been a debatable subject (Hernandez, 1996, p. 17). This debate has recently been increased by television coverage of trial proceedings of Louise Woodward and OJ Simpson. However, these trials made some commentators believe that justice has been made mere voyeuristic entertainment (Lassiter, 1996, p. 974). In a democratic society, it is important that everyone easily accesses bodies that are responsible for their freedom and rights. In UK, citizens do not only watch parliament proceedings but also court proceedings without having to attend in person. On the other hand, they also watch debates in the House of Lords and House of Commons on terrestrial television. In UK, trials of well-published are often televised as either news reports or separate documentaries (Brill, 1996, p.51). A channel that only airs criminal justice system’s footage, Court TV, is normally made available in the court rooms to inform the citizens of proceedings of a certain case. O.J. Simpson’s murder trial was fully filmed and watched by millions of audience. This made the lawyers and judges that were involved in this case become international celebrities. Another famous case trial that was filmed and watched by all citizens was that of Louise Woodward – a case of murder committed in the United States (Mason, 2000, p. 26). Pictures of her appearance in the courtroom were transmitted in Britain. That resulted into immense public reaction. A campaign by the national media raised enough money to pay for her sub sequential appeal and defense costs. The televised emotive pictures made the public to sympathize with her, hence the assistance. Interesting issues concerning discrimination, individual liberties and constitutional rights are raised in this topic. Other international trials have also embraced the significance of audio visual technology (Mason, 2000, p. 26). International criminal tribunals that were concerned with former Yugoslavian dissolution and Rwandan atrocities were also televised, thus gaining mixed reactions from the public. Arguments Supporting Camera Use in the Court Television as Educator; Learning the Law A democratic society allows its citizen’s to access court proceedings. Anyone has a right to sit in the public gallery, watch the whole or part of the trial, or appeal. In UK, citizens are often free to attend even then House of Lords, similar to the way citizens are free to watch the proceedings of the Supreme Court in the United States. Therefore, there is no constitutional barrier that bars court trials from being televised. However, it is difficult for non-lawyers to understand court events. Television coverage normally include commentaries that make it easier for citizens to understand thus making the watching of a trial an educational experience that is even more profitable. In the OJ Simpsons case, camera men were frequently cautioned against taking shots of the messenger. This case has since created a knee-jerk sort of reaction. However, watching all court proceedings is limited during the week as people are busy in their work places. Attending court proceedings in person is every expensive while public gallery is limited in space. People have to arrive very early in courts to attend well-publicized trials in order to secure a seat. Citizens should not enjoy their democratic rights by making such sacrifices of money and time. On the other hand, court proceedings should be televised just like parliament proceedings. This is because laws are usually made in parliament and the role of court is only developing them. Precedent doctrine is normally applied in countries that use common law. Therefore, outcome of subsequent cases can be determined by earlier reasoning. Consequently, court decisions could equally impact on people’s lives just like just like parliament decisions. It is the right of all citizens to know these decisions. Moreover, even though all cases do not determine new law, it is the right of the public to know how these laws are normally applied. Seeing law being made in parliament is just a half of the story, while seeing it being applied in the court completes the story. Improvement of Public Confidence Presence of cameras in courtroom does not distort the trial process but improves the confidence of the public in the entire judicial system. It is difficult for a system that people never see to have public confidence. The judiciary is often seen as a closed and secretive club. The occasional comments made by judges are usually ridiculed by the media because of their clumsiness (Brill, 1996, p.52). This unrepresentative image can only be dispelled by portraying the competence, sensitivity and efficiency among judges in the entire legal system by ensuring the presence of cameras in the courtroom during the trial process. By airing court proceedings, judges have been able to improve their profile in the public domain in recent years. O.J Simpson’s Trial as an Aberration In the OJ Simpsons trial, the attorney was accused of “showboating” excessive length of the trial. A judge who was affected by the camera has been documented. However, proponents of televised trials believe that the trial of Simpson exceptionally proves the rule. In answering camera coverage criticisms concerning Simpson’s trial, many argue that cameras did not create the trial participants’ behavior. According to camera men, it was not possible for the editorial in Broadcast to control the hemlines portrayed on skirts of Marcia Clark (Smolowe, 1995, p.38. Cameras as Antidote to the Sensationalist and Hysterical Coverage Further more, televised trials act like an antidote to the sensationalist and hysterical coverage of trials, which is only seen in the print media. Rather than only relying on the report of a journalist concerning a certain case, and the sketches that are reported by courtroom artists, the public will be able to personally view the evidence, defendant’s demeanor and the process of trial. This will prevent the public from being misled by the media and other opinions of the public (Thomas, 1983, 249). Incentive to High Standard Judicial System Cameras in the courtroom improve the process of trial, because monitoring by the public gives the judiciary and lawyers a powerful incentive to adhere to high standards of behavior as well as increase their efficiency (Catliff, 2000, p. 4). No judge would dare to make an ignorant comment that he knows it would face beam in every home. Camera introduction into the parliament in Britain and United Kingdom significantly improved the debate quality. Greater attendance among parliament members, as well as their punctuality and participation has also been reported. Therefore, the adoption of cameras in the courtrooms during trial proceedings is likely to reap similar benefits. Appeal Evidence A trial that is recorded in a video provides a new tool that is very powerful to the defendant and the judiciary. It provides ample evidence that a defendant can use to appeal to the high court (Goldfarb, 1998, p. 44). Unfortunately, judges in the appeal courts are normally reluctant to listen to evidence provided by witnesses during the trial, because they cannot see such evidence that is being given. Therefore, the appeal right against conviction becomes limited. However, watching the record in a video allows the judges to gather sufficient evidence and hence assess body language, demeanor, and overall impression provided by the witnesses; something could be missing in a written transcript (Altheide, 1984, p. 23). These characteristics are very necessary in the ascertainment of the validity of the evidence. Arguments against Cameras in Court Interference with the System of Trial Cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom during a trial process because their presence might interfere with system of justice if trials are televised. This is because, the effect upon crime victims and witnesses and possible corruption among witnesses and the jury. Following the O.J Simpson trial that was televised, many witnesses’ jurors provided interviews to media, while others wrote own memoirs concerning the case (Trigobov, 1997, p. 24). In the UK, it is against the law to disclose jury room’s proceedings or the opinion of jurors to those involved in such cases. Trigobov (1997, p. 24) asserts that newspaper interviews, like in the case of Simpson, have led to the abandonment of trials in presence of cameras. Cameras only encourage jurors and witnesses to distort their real opinions or recollection in order to benefit from the circus of the media. Paying participants in order to find facts during trial may cause the participants to settle on the wrong verdict, which never inspire confidence in criminal justice system. Distortion of True Representation In reference to the O.J. Simpson’s trial case, his inability of his hands to fit in gloves found at the scene of murder was the most memorable event in this case. This is just like diminishing the dignity of the court. However, the television coverage provided very little prominence to scientific evidence hours that proved the possibility of the gloves having shrunk. In America for example, Court TV suggests that sensational elements of printed media pervade on television. Televisions are likely to distort true representation to a greater extent according to West, 1997, p. 48). Heinous crime trials take so long (Marquand, 1996, p. 20), that the editorial discretion is required so as to produce an informative and brief program. On the other hand, newspaper reports are only a summary of events of the courts proceedings for a whole day. Cameras mainly focus on dramatic incidences that do not necessarily represent the proceedings’ entirety. Judicial System is Self Accountable In UK and many other nations, the judiciary and lawyers are sufficiently accountable. Although they enjoy security of tenure, their competence is usually monitored constantly by barristers’ and solicitors’ reports appearing before them. Moreover, television cameras have potential harm to the standards of debate. Media coverage in debates of House of Commons, especially questions by the Prime Minister has resulted into sound bite politics. The depth of discussion and analysis is normally replaced by comments that are only pithy striking on television bulletins (Barber, 1983 p.251). It is crucial that all issues are thoroughly investigated in search for truth. However, (Barber, 1983 p.258) says that this cannot be assisted through protagonists’ encouragement to rely only on cameras of one line. Stenographer Benefits all Trial Participants In Britain, every court trial with a crown is usually recorded and stored in order to assist lawyers and judges who are involved in potential appeal. Additionally every courtroom has a stenographer that records for the benefit of all those involved in the process of trial. Therefore, a video recording becomes unnecessary (West, 1997, p. 48). In the system of common law, facts are tried by jurors, as opposed to judges. The juries reach their decision according to the evidence presented by witnesses. Therefore, use of a video record to overturn the verdict of the jury would need a complete revolution in the system of criminal justice. Hence, abolishment of the jury would need to be effected. Cameras Mislead Members of the Public: Effect on Witnesses and Victims In a court, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. Televising the proceeding of a court trial may make members of the public make their own conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, which may not be the final verdict of the case trial (Goldfarb, 1995, p. 88). This was evident in the O. J. Simpson’s case. Though the public believed he was guilty of the murder, there results turned out negative when his hands failed to fit in gloves found at the scene of crime. The Americans also believed that Louise Woodward was also guilty in his murder case, which was hard for the court to prove in the end. On release, defendants might suffer from negative public image like anonymity and unemployment. In any case, (Goldfarb, 1995, p. 88) argues that the real motivation behind televising court trials is not the pursuit of democratic rights but rather the pursuit of titillation and drama. Conclusion Court proceedings coverage by electronic broadcast is likely to trigger more political significance in UK according to the recent Human Rights Act enactment (Lassiter, 1996, p. 1004). The Act incorporates the Human Rights of the European Convention into the domestic law of United Kingdom. Article 6 allows everybody to enjoy a fair public hearing which must be within a reasonable period by an impartial and independent tribunal that is established by law. Additionally, the article states that the press can be excluded from such hearings for public order, national security, or for moral interests. It further says that the judge may exclude the media and public if publicity would prejudice justice interests. Irrespective of developments in modern technology, it cannot be denied that media coverage of proceedings in courts will eventually alter the system of justice in of UK, permanently. Therefore, it is important that more detailed and further examination of this issue that is so contentious is undertaken in the arenas of politics and academics. The role of the media in the judicial system is thus very significant, since many people cannot access courts to follow their proceedings. On the other hand, it is difficult for them to understand what could be going on in the court rooms. The presence of media helps them to better understand the progress as they always elaborate in simple terms about such proceedings. The process of trial should not in any way be affected by the presence of cameras since judges are bound to follow the law (Lassiter, 1996, p. 1007). The fact that presence of cameras increases their efficiency and accountability is a reason that is good enough to permit cameras in the courtrooms. References Altheide, D. (1984). 'TV News and the Social Construction of Justice: Research Issues and Policy. Springfield, IL. Retrieved on 5th July, 2011 from http://news2.this.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsis_668000/668337.stm. Barber, S. (1983). “The Problem of Prejudice: A New Approach to Assessing the Impact of Courtroom Cameras”. Judicature 66 (6) pp.248-255. Brill, S. (1996). “Cameras Belong in the Courtroom' in USA”. Today Magazine. July vol. 125 no.2614 p.52. Catliff, N. (February, 2000). “Trust the People”. The Guardian G2. Guardian Media Group. Goldfarb, R (1995). TV or Not TV: Television, Justice and the Courts. New York; New York University Press p.88. Goldfarb, R (1998). Television Cameras and the Courts. New York; New York University Press. Hernandez, G. (1996). Courtroom Cameras Debated. Hernandez. vol.129 no.7. Lassiter, C. (1996). “TV or not TV - That is the Question”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Spring 86 no.3 pp.928 -1095. Marquand, I. (1996). 'Coverage in Courtrooms Age Old Issue for Judges' (SPJ National Convention Special Report) in The Quill October vol.84 no.9 March p.20. Mason, P. (2000). “Lights, Camera, Justice ? Cameras in the Courtroom; An Outline of the Issues’ in Crime Prevention and Community Safety.” An International Journal, Vol.2 (3), pp.23-34. Smolowe, J. (1995). “TV Cameras On Trial: The Unseemly Simpson Spectacle Provokes a Backlash against Televised Proceedings”. In Time, July 24, vol. 14, no.24 p.38. Thomas, S. (1983). “Prejudice: Assessing the Impact of Courtroom Cameras”. Judicature 69(6) pp.248-252. Trigobov, D. (1997). “Court Coverage Hindered by OJ Backlash? Simpson Debacle has Changed the Landscape for Cameras in Courtrooms”. Broadcast & Cable. June 23 vol. 127 no. 26 p. 24. West, W. (1997). “Television in Court Invites Trivialization' in Insight”. News Magazine, June 23 vol 23, no.23. Read More