Cameras in Court

[Rich]

If you have a personal interest in a case, attend the court. If you do not, what purpose is served by watching it on TV? Unless someone has decided that selling TV rights might be a way to avoid the cuts to Legal Aid, I fail to see why time is being wasted on such a pointless idea.

 

It's PM David Cameron's latest mad idea, it won't happen, there's far too many things wrong with the idea for it to EVER happen.

[Mecky]

Won't deter people from crime, if anything it will be a badge of honour. Most people are desperate to get their ugly mug on TV at any cost.

[Closet Guy.]

Won't deter people from crime, if anything it will be a badge of honour. Most people are desperate to get their ugly mug on TV at any cost.

 

Which they sort of do in already.

Have you not seen Jeremy Jezza Kyle.?

[Nagel]

It's a bad idea that no one will benefit from, apart from the media companies and the people selling the rights. I presume the plan is for the Courts to sell the footage for profit?

 

I can't see how it furthers the cause of justice.

[Badlittlepup]

looks like the government may be toying with the idea of having some court cases televised like they do in america, i think under certain cases such as kiddy fiddlers and serial killers it would be great, for someone who is a shop lifter then it would be pointless, does anyone else agree

 

I don't really like the idea of court cases being used as entertainment or titillation. Particularly when it involves the loss of someone's life. And kiddy fiddlers - just wouldn't happen to preserve the privacy of their victims.

 

I heard a suggestion today that it could be limited parts like the verdict and the summing up or opening statements which could be used for reporting purposes.

 

But I don't like the idea of it being much more than that, it's not entertainment, I don't like the idea of participants grandstanding to the camera or ghouls looking in.

[alchresearch]

It really depends on the case. Personally I've found the hearings (slightly different but along the same lines) relating to the NI hacking case very interesting and worthy of broadcast.

[Badlittlepup]

It really depends on the case. Personally I've found the hearings (slightly different but along the same lines) relating to the NI hacking case very interesting and worthy of broadcast.

 

Ditto the Iraq enquiries but they're very different.

 

I mean, just as an example - if the Rosemary West trial had been televised how do you think the victims families would have felt about people sitting down with popcorn and a pizza listening to how their daughters bodies were dismembered for a Friday afternoon thrill?

 

What about the rights of witnesses who have a difficult enough job giving evidence without it being broadcast to turn them into some type of celebrity?

 

I think there is a case for limited parts such as the sentencing but VERY limited.

[alchresearch]

The only televised cases I can think of that I've seen were Phil Spector and OJ Simpson.

 

I can't say I'd be interested in seedy courtroom tales and stories, but there is (or was) a demand for them. ISTR a "at the courts" page in the Sunday Sport where they described in sickening detail the sexual cases of that week.

[llamatron]

I think cameras should stay out. I was watching a court case in America and I just thought it was horrific that say the person was innocent, his face had been seen by the nation trying to defend himself from a murder charge. If the person was guilty then I couldn't care less about what he has to deal with but I don't see what the population gains from it. It was very interesting to try and work out whether I thought they were guilty but its not big brother we are watching.

[llamatron]

Its wrong.

The only good court TV is Judge Judy.

 

I wouldn't mind that actually, those cases pretty much are big brother. I remember one about a divorce and they were arguing about who got the vacuum. Literally just the vacuum. She told them to get out and sort it out themselves.