Should High Profile Court Cases Be Televised?

[agchristie]

Will such a move provide more confidence in our legal system?

I mean, it's a bit different to the millions who watch the antics of Judge Rinder isn't it?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/653984/High-profile-Old-Bailey-cases-broadcast-live-TV-government

[Peter Pedant]

the problem is the real cases drag arn and arn....

One tribunal I will be going to Monday as a gallery hack
on a legal point to advise the panel of 'walk-ins' one side yaps for thirty minutes and then the other side yaps for thirty minutes and says exactly the SAME things citing the same cases ( of which there can only be a few ) and the Legal Assessor has HIS go and says it all for a third time along with momentous pauses

so after a morning of let us say three weeks - after three hours you feel like throwing yourself out of a third floor window and ending the torture

this case I thinkl I wil make it thro the opening speeches

[Mamyalynne]

I imagine for some they would be compulsive viewing, as to whether they should be televised I'm really not sure.


My Grandfather was a keen amateur student of criminology and introduced me to his vast library on the topic , am sure he would have approved - too late for him of course but a fascinating subject just not sure of the newness of a modern day case being lived out on screen.

[Canary42]

Only if all the participants agree, including the members of the jury.

Personally on the cases where I sat on a jury I would not agree to it being screened.

[Peter Pedant]

you could always attend in person....

high profile cases almost never generate interesting case law

In the tribunal I will be attending - the relations of the victim started brawling with the relations of the accused in one case. so they hired security guards but didnt tell anyone ( cos they wore their own clothes see ) and there were further complaints about that Oh Lardy Lardy !

I was misdirected into the professional hacks room once and heard what they REALLY thought about these cases....

[agchristie]

The cases of OJ Simpson, Pistorius and Knox hardly provide precedents of reassurance do they?

Adam Johnson's trial has proved a major talking point too.

Televising such cases have not provided great insight as all it takes is a successful appeal and who knows an overturning of the appeal!

[Peter Pedant]

It is public canary
so the jury cannot stop being identified by a walk-in

In a local case Newton heath - drugs shootings of course - the witness testified ( not on tel ) with a paper bag over her head but was identified by her voice
and later on a crowd came round to burn down the house

[Svejk]

They won't show the juries.

[mikey4444]

Not sure what the point of it is ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35854485

"Filming other court users, including defendants, witnesses and victims, would remain banned"

[Peter Pedant]

only part of the Contempt of Court Act 1926 which is still ( partially in force)

if you can only televise the spiders and other creepy crawlies then it will be a damp squib

[ummmm]

I've only been in court once and it was so so boring. I can't see people being that interested in watching it

[dieseldick]

yes

[Old_Geezer]

I'm unsure accused should be widely identified, at least before a guilty verdict is returned. Also is there a danger of cameras effecting how folk act and thus outcomes ?

[atalanta]

Filming is one thing, broadcasting is another. Any broadcasting will have to be very selective, and strict criteria will have to be laid down. It would be only too easy to jeopardise justice.

[New Judge]

This proposal is not quite what people imagine.

All that is proposed is that the judges sentencing remarks are broadcast. e.g.:
“Norman Stanley Fletcher, you are an habitual criminal who treats arrest as an occupational hazard and who presumably views imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to sentence you to the maximum allowed for these offences. You will go to prison for five years”

Sentencing remarks such as this are already available to view online for many cases. Quite why the government feels the need to televise such an event is beyond me. There are certainly no plans to televise any other parts of criminal proceedings (which are often very tedious anyway) and nor should there be.

Anyone with any interest in a particular case can always visit the court in person (unless those involved are under 18). It is difficult enough to get witnesses and jurors to court as it is. Knowing they may be shown on the telly may attract some exhibitionist types but most people will be aghast at such a thought.

[DTCwordfan]

For once you and I agree New Judge.....it's also bringing in unnecessary camera crews, antics for the lens and all the rest...what next, shots of the condemned pulling two fingers at the judge or the victims.

ps - we could always film the hangings and send the footage back to Isisland.