Cameras in the Courtroom Act

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/idUS313425821720111206

I think it's a BAD idea. It's not as if counsel don't engage in dog and pony shows enough. Now let's leave it to all courts and the Supreme Court Justices to be Darden, Clark, Cochran and Ito.

Television cameras will be played to. It turns a courtroom into a partisan political arena. A spin zone. Let's go all Court TV on it! Get color men to comment. Sign me up.

I have zero doubt that this is about transparency. The SCOTUS doesn't take witnesses, weigh evidence, etc. They are engaged in appellate work. I think this is more of an example of politicians seeking to politicize a branch that is designed to be apolitical.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/idUS313425821720111206

I think it's a BAD idea. It's not as if counsel don't engage in dog and pony shows enough. Now let's leave it to all courts and the Supreme Court Justices to be Darden, Clark, Cochran and Ito.

Television cameras will be played to. It turns a courtroom into a partisan political arena. A spin zone. Let's go all Court TV on it! Get color men to comment. Sign me up.

I have zero doubt that this is about transparency. The SCOTUS doesn't take witnesses, weigh evidence, etc. They are engaged in appellate work. I think this is more of an example of politicians seeking to politicize a branch that is designed to be apolitical.

It will never happen. The judicial branch gets to make its own rules per The Constitution. Who gets to interpret The Constitution? SCOTUS. End-of-argument.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[Bertt 0]

If we're just talking about the Supreme Court and it's done the way C-SPAN does the House and Senate, I'm okay with it. If anybody with a camera can broadcast from any courtroom, that's a circus waiting to happen.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Andy9o8 0]

I'm opposed to cameras in trial courtrooms, for the reasons you cite. I'm generally OK with them in the appellate courts.

[popsjumper 2]

Are they going to have commercial breaks? The bailiff throws out a red flag and we go to commercial?

Who's going to sponsor these shows? Bondsmen? Police unions? ACLU?

When the accused jumps the table and punches out the DA, will we get replays? In slo-mo?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

I'm opposed to cameras in trial courtrooms, for the reasons you cite. I'm generally OK with them in the appellate courts.

When I was working on my grad courses in Communications (Social Science) back in the early 90's, the subject of cameras in the courtroom surfaced to the top. We watched studies of courts that knew they had cameras and our assignment was to watch and interpret the nonverbal queues (no volume/Mute). There was another study done where only the Judge knew of the hidden camera... interestingly enough, in watching the nonverbals... without knowing it; the Judge was playing to the camera.

Kinda been apposed to cameras in the courtroom ever since.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[masterrig 1]

I don't agree with cameras in the courtroom, at all. Cameras only turn the courtroom into a circus. As you mentioned, all the 'characters' in the O.J. trial playing to the camera. The whole courtroom proceedings become a show for ratings and egoes.


Chuck

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

I'm opposed to cameras in trial courtrooms, for the reasons you cite. I'm generally OK with them in the appellate courts.

I can't make up my mind on this.
The OJ trial...
Appellate Cts. are a post trial event that decide if the trial was fair, and so forth...
( Yup, I know that nobody is guaranteed a perfect trial, just a fair one.)
At this point, I think that only security cameras should be allowed. The possibility of humans acting human and not seeing to the welfare of the client, whether the People or the D, is too much of a risk simply for a "curiosity". I remain open minded to further discussion.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I don't agree with cameras in the courtroom, at all. Cameras only turn the courtroom into a circus. As you mentioned, all the 'characters' in the O.J. trial playing to the camera. The whole courtroom proceedings become a show for ratings and egoes.


Chuck

Courtrooms are already largely a circus. Cameras just enlarge the audience.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't agree with cameras in the courtroom, at all. Cameras only turn the courtroom into a circus. As you mentioned, all the 'characters' in the O.J. trial playing to the camera. The whole courtroom proceedings become a show for ratings and egoes.


Chuck

Courtrooms are already largely a circus. Cameras just enlarge the audience.

Considering what the courts have to deal with, I'd have to agree.


Chuck

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]The judicial branch gets to make its own rules per The Constitution

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Courtrooms are already largely a circus. Cameras just enlarge the audience.

Bingo!
+1

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

I assume they would black out the faces of the witnesses and jury? Maybe disguise voices?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I assume they would black out the faces of the witnesses and jury? Maybe disguise voices?

You mean like Al Jolson? That would be racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfjzKYXzsjA

[lawrocket 3]

The Supreme Court doesn't deal with juries or witnesses. Nor do apellate courts. Those are all trial court things. The appellate courts deal with briefs and transcripts looking for legal errors. Just lawyers and judges.

My wife is hotter than your wife.