Cameras in Court

Cameras In Court

Is Judy still keeping audiences entertained by giving the court system a new attitude?

Will court systems ever get back its dignity? Not as long as the cameras still role. Cameras in the

courtroom have been very beneficial in certain cases, but it has caused a lot of harm. The

human race has taken the solemness of these meetings, and has changed it to a form of

entertainment only clowns would be involved with. The public is so involved with this

newfound form of fun, that they don't realize the actual damage that it is causing in the judicial

system as well as human life. I feel that even though cameras are a very innovative way to

educate people about unknown situations, they need not be in courtrooms involved with high

profile cases. Having cameras in courtrooms is a primitive form of cheap entertainment.

The biggest trial in recent history has been said to have been the O.J Simpson trial. People

flocked to their favorite public places to be with friends so they could watch the trial together.

Some even gave up sleep so to get as much information about the case as possible. The

Simpson trial seemed to be a lot more popular for entertainment than watching movies or even

watching the Super Bowl. In Time magazine, journalist Jill Smolowe, quoted Don Hewitt,

executive producer of 60 Minutes, about the atrocity of making trials a spectator sport. Hewitt

said, "I don't like the idea that a murder trial has been turned into an entertainment special.

There are certain moments in American life that have certain dignity" (38). The judicial system

is a very complex system and deserves the respect and dignity that is required. It needs to be

taken seriously. The public has no right to make it into a game. This is a serious process of

bringing criminals to justice.

Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very

unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more

knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in a courtroom

and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really

goes on and now can better understand and relate.

Sure having court proceedings on T.V. can help us really understand and become

educated about them. But it's not needed. A big issue these days is the issue that the Supreme

Court won't allow cameras into their courtroom. Reasons behind this are that they feel that

issues discussed within are too important and can't be influenced by outsiders. Regular

courtrooms should be the same. The public has no right to actually know what goes on in the

courtroom. Courtrooms contain too much sensitive information the public should not hear.

Only by the public relying on the news or newspapers, can these sensitive issues be kept safe.

Another major problem with having cameras within the courtroom is that it's hard for

an accused person to receive a fair trial. Because of cameras, the public becomes too informed

and therefore form opinions or verdicts before information is brought forth. In her article "The

Circus Comes to Town," Elaine Nadeau quoted Edward Greenspan, a criminal lawyer and

university lecturer. He said, "trial by media- threatens the very basis upon which our judicial

system operates, because it brings into the courtroom the rumors and passions of the

marketplace. These must inevitably imperil the constitutional right of every accused to a fair

trial" (13). I can totally understand the view of Greenspan. Of all the trials that I have heard of,

most have been on T.V. I find that the majority of the time I take the side the media portrays

and choose the verdict without giving the accused a chance. To this day, even after their trials

are finished, I still think that Simpson or even Clinton is guilty. This stand, I've found, is based

off the ideas that others more involved than I have given to me.

Some people claim that it's okay to have an opinion of a criminal; it's only human to

pass judgment on what is heard and then make a strong ethics decision. By doing this, one is

able to make a standard in their life about what is right and what is wrong. My question about

this is what happens when these people are called to jury duty? If everyone knows about a

certain trial and the extent of the charges on the accused, when asked to go to jury duty, they

are unable to participate because they have set their own view. And if everyone has their own

view, who sits in the jury box? Like the Simpson trial, it was very difficult to find people without

a strong view to sit in the box, therefore a lot of time was spent finding the jurors and thus

wasting a lot of time on

...