Should trials be broadcast on TV?

[Razgovory]

MSNBC (and possibly other news sources) is broadcasting the Derek Chauvin case this week.  I was kinda wondering what some of our Languish Lawyers thought of that.  Personally, I dislike it.  If I was a witnessed on a trial like this I would do everything in my power to avoid testifying.  Testifying in an untelevised trial is okay, but chances of future harassments seem like they would be much higher if everyone could see my face and hear me give testimony.  People who might take out their anger on a witnesses are probably people who wouldn't dig through trail transcripts.

[Sheilbh]

No. But I'm in the UK and quite like the approach here.

So lower courts aren't filmed. They've got witnesses, make findings of fact in specific cases and the general view is there's nothing beyond a news/media value in broadcasting them. Generally the view is that's probably outweighed by the potential harm to a trial and there are already very strict reporting rules in UK court cases that go way past what's normal in the US. The higher courts decide points of law which matter generally, so there's more of a public interest/educational quality in those hearings. The Supreme Court broadcasts live - but is rarely carried on TV - and has an archive of their hearings and there have been experiments in the Court of Appeal. Having said that the Supreme Court justices are relatively anonymous here, they're not associated with any political ideologies and also the Supreme Court interrupts a lot less than in the US so their sessions tend to be quite boring (except for law students) while I think in the US some would be relatively interesting.

[Valmy]

Only if all the parties agree. If witness Raz doesn't want to appear on TV then the court should act accordingly.

[The Brain]

Only by combat.

[Admiral Yi]

I lean more yes than no.  It would be good for the public to have a better understanding of court procedures.

[celedhring]

All court proceedings in Spain have to be taped, and these recordings are part of the public record - with the exception of stuff like rape trials, where the intimacy of the victim takes precedence. There's also provisions for protected witnesses, or for witnesses that don't want their face recorded. The trials themselves, though, aren't broadcast, even though you'll get clips of the most prominent ones on the news - and we've had examples of some of the more gruesome/scandalous ones get turned into a bit of a circus. That said, the only trial I can remember to be broadcast live is the 2017 UDI one, which was broadcast in its entirety (and the fucker lasted MONTHS) by the Catalan public TV.

So, to answer the question, they should be taped in order to be available for public scrutiny, but if they were broadcast regularly it could potentially turn into a circus.

[DGuller]

Not a lawyer, but I'm thinking no.  It seems like for the cases where the public is interested, it transforms a court case into a theater.  I used to think that all those artist sketches from the courtroom that they do in NY were silly and a scheme to give sinecure to sketch artists, but now I think it's not such a bad system.

[Admiral Yi]

Not a lawyer, but I'm thinking no.  It seems like for the cases where the public is interested, it transforms a court case into a theater.  I used to think that all those artist sketches from the courtroom that they do in NY were silly and a scheme to give sinecure to sketch artists, but now I think it's not such a bad system.

I think that's more a function of the jury system than TV.

[jimmy olsen]

I lean more yes than no.  It would be good for the public to have a better understanding of court procedures.

I agree with Yi.

[Maladict]

No, not even the high profile ones. Privacy is important.

[Josephus]

No, not even the high profile ones. Privacy is important.

I think it would be a bad idea, but not sure because of privacy. Court trials are open to the public. At least in Canada, and I imagine most other places, I can walk into any courtroom and witness it. So to say that they should not be broadcast on TV due to privacy doesn't make sense.

Now of course, in some cases, the judge can order that the trial be closed to spectators, in which case the same would apply to TV. A judge can also rule that some testimony is not for the public as well.

That all said, not sure who'd want to broadcast trials. Most trials are extremely slow and  boring (sorry BB, et. al.). When I was in journalism school in the late 80s, we had to cover a few trials, and none of them had a last minute person running into the courtroom yelling "Your honour we have some last minute evidence!" I remember one that involved a Vietnamese guy testifying through a translator...man, even the judge rested his head in his arms on his bench. Snore fest.

But I think it's a bad idea because it does have the potential of turning trials into circuses. Lawyers pontificating and scoring popularity points. I can imagine at some point the broadcaster saying "Can we cut out all the boring stuff? Also, what's with all the lawyers being male. Can we get a young blonde lawyer?

[Admiral Yi]

I've watched some clips of the Gauvin trial and it's duller than dust.

[crazy canuck]

I think they should.  Open courts are of foundational importance.  And sufficient safeguards can be put in place for witnesses who do not wish to be, or should not be, on camera.

[crazy canuck]

Most trials are extremely slow and  boring (sorry BB, et. al.). When I was in journalism school in the late 80s, we had to cover a few trials, and none of them had a last minute person running into the courtroom yelling "Your honour we have some last minute evidence!" I remember one that involved a Vietnamese guy testifying through a translator...man, even the judge rested his head in his arms on his bench. Snore fest.

The problem with media covering trials is exactly what you are describing.  They are looking for the dramatic moment, but that almost never occurs.  Instead trials are detailed fact finding processes where the significance of some evidence will likely not be known until all the evidence is in and final arguments are made.  That is actually why open courts are necessary - if we had to rely on media reports the public would get a very distorted view of what occurs.  Really the reporting should occur at the end, when the reasons for decision are released.  But even then the media are looking for comments right after lengthy decisions are handed down when no one has hada reasonable opportunity to read and reflect on what the court wrote.

[Maladict]

No, not even the high profile ones. Privacy is important.

I think it would be a bad idea, but not sure because of privacy. Court trials are open to the public. At least in Canada, and I imagine most other places, I can walk into any courtroom and witness it. So to say that they should not be broadcast on TV due to privacy doesn't make sense.

You can witness court proceedings here, but you're not allowed to bring a phone or other recording equipment for privacy reasons. There is a difference.