Should trials be broadcast on TV?

[crazy canuck]

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.

There is also a difference between private devices being used (which can capture things that are prohibited) and official court room cameras which will not.

[Razgovory]

I have no problem with people coming in to viewing the trial, just televising it.  There is of course another problem with televised trials that Josephus alluded to: People act differently when a camera is on them.  Knowing a camera is on them may cause a judge or attorney to act in a way that they would not have acted if the camera wasn't on them.  A judge favoring one side or another because of political calculations (and yes, in the US some judges are elected) is not a good thing.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UClAhUcdtxo&t=111s

I found this kind of bizarre.  9 year old testifies at the Gauvin trial, she is not shown on camera to protect her identity. 

Then right away they ask her to comment on CCTV footage of her and her cousin walking down the street.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the whole purpose?

[Sheilbh]

The criminal courts here are very restrictive (only been to Old Bailey) - as a member of the public/in the gallery you're not allowed a bag or any electronics to get into the building.

In the commercial courts and the Court of Appeal, you're allowed both it's just like an airport.

And on reporting I don't think it would add much in the UK to the way trials are reported because reporting restrictions from the second someone's been charged to the verdict are very, very strict. So they really can only present factual summaries of what happened in court or they're in contempt. I don't know if it would actually add much or if the media companies would run live trials. As I say the Supreme Court's always been broadcast and the only time I can think it was running live was during the proroguing parliament/Brexit trial.

[crazy canuck]

I have no problem with people coming in to viewing the trial, just televising it.  There is of course another problem with televised trials that Josephus alluded to: People act differently when a camera is on them.  Knowing a camera is on them may cause a judge or attorney to act in a way that they would not have acted if the camera wasn't on them.  A judge favoring one side or another because of political calculations (and yes, in the US some judges are elected) is not a good thing.

I think that people become used to be on camera over time.  When SCC hearings were first broadcast I think it did have an effect in the sense that people, including the judges were a bit self conscious.  But now it has no effect on behaviour and has become normal course.

[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.

There is also a difference between private devices being used (which can capture things that are prohibited) and official court room cameras which will not.

Sure, but the official cameras aren't allowed to film anyone but the judges and attorneys either. And sometimes not even them, in high profile cases.

[crazy canuck]

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.

There is also a difference between private devices being used (which can capture things that are prohibited) and official court room cameras which will not.

Sure, but the official cameras aren't allowed to film anyone but the judges and attorneys either. And sometimes not even them, in high profile cases.

Right, I think we may be making the same point 

[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.

There is also a difference between private devices being used (which can capture things that are prohibited) and official court room cameras which will not.

Sure, but the official cameras aren't allowed to film anyone but the judges and attorneys either. And sometimes not even them, in high profile cases.

Right, I think we may be making the same point 

Technically yes 

But I don't think the intent of the question was "should trials be broadcast, even though almost nothing will actually be shown?"