televised court cases ..for or against
 

sky link


I think this would be a good idea because it could take away the trial by media element in the big trials that attract media attention,it would limit their opportunities to selectively report facts in a way that prejudice the general public

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

You did see the TV coverage of the OJ Simpson trial and that of Michael Jackson?

Just those two examples are reason enough for us NOT to go down the same avenue as the US.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I agree that we shouldn't go the same way as the americans but with stricter guidelines as proposed by Lord Neuberger it could work

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

judge judy ? lol

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Give our media an inch and they take a mile..I'm against it whatever the precautions.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I have to reluctantly agree, I'd be very interested to see certain trials televised but my head tells me that in the long run this won't serve justice in our country.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

i think you are right, it will just turn justice into a circus.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Judge Judy is one of the best things on TV, I need my daily fix of JJ

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

FOR

If it shows the courts for the joke that they are and induces some form of change I'm all for it.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Derek it's bad enough what we have at the moment but I really don't want to be watching court cases 24/7 courtesy of the 24 hour news.

The bit that got me was all the couch potatoes not understanding in the OJ trial that just because they got some idea of what the evidence courtesy of media speculation, was that some of the time the jury never got to see the inadmissible evidence that the media could speculate about and they were prevented from seeing any news about the court case so didn't have all the facts unlike the couch potatoes..

No I really don't want it.We have enough pigging reality TV as it is.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

What we have at the moment is rarely/minimally regulated leaving the media to quote out of context giving false impressions to the public .what is talked about is a much more regulated system being controlled by the courts(similar to cameras in parliament) nothing like the American system ,and as Derek said if it shows some of the judges up for the incompetent buffoons they are then all the better

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

In Parliament we see the effects of TV cameras on the inmates.They play to the cameras...and I can see a few Judges doing the same..:rolleyes:

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

which is my point ,in parliament we see some mps playing to the audience and form an impression of them which is reflected come election time ,with judges if they play to the audience then it will rapidly lead to judges losing their jobs as it is much more serious when peoples freedom is at stake ,it will make judges much more accountable to the public and having the judiciary system made a laughing stock on tv won't be tolerated .Justice seen to be done is the basis of our sytem and this will only help

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

And nobody as yet has said to her "Who the hell do you think you are talking to?!"

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I, for one, would be very interested in watching these if they came to be televised - but only because I study non verbal behaviour and psychology. It would bring a great opportunity for me to get some more first hand study experience of real life situations of truth and deceipt. if they were broadcast live, even better.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I'm FOR it,with restrictions...

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Why not just attend court at first hand?:confused:

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

i have a full time job and a family. therefore I would record them and watch at my leisure (probably after 10pm). the reference to being broadcast live was meant in relation to an unedited 'non-highlights' version. the live broadcast would feature all the realtime reactions of those participating. no out of sync editing or loss of valuable expression. i could still record it myself and watch back later as it would still consist of the trail as it happened, unedited.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

in addition to my above comment, if one can simply walk in and watch a trial anyway, why do feel it's such a bad idea to have the trials televised? the only difference is that the trial will reach a wider audience, is it not? the fact would remain that anyone could watch it, televised or not....

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Because the presence of cameras makes actors out of those taking part in the proceedings.

At present the fact that the numbers viewing proceedings are small and probably partisan limits the 'playing to the gallery ' aspect that will be very much present when millions can watch.

Anyway I'm bored with this thread.I've said why I dislike the scheme,why I don't think it will serve justice but will cheapen the whole process by reducing it to the level of reality TV.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

a guilty suspect will always 'play to the gallery', or at least to the jury. they are trying not to get sent down!!! but come the end of the trial, regardless of how many people watch it, the evidence is still going to be there (or not). the number of people viewing a trial is unlikely to have any bearing on the result.

as for your reality TV comment - I'm not so sure I agree. Reality TV tends to be 'real' people in controlled and staged circumstances with no other agenda than entertainment, whereas the recording of a trial would, in my view, fall more into the category of documentary, in the respect that it is documenting the trial. and if one were faced with losing their freedom for many years, I doubt the fact that they are on TV would really be at the top of their concerns, would it?

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

There are other participants in a court case..;)and they are all 'real' in a supposedly controlled and staged set of a courtroom.

Just take a look at questions time in the House of Commons every Wednesday.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

But do you agree that the agenda of those involved in a court case is not entertainment, but a rather more serious one of liberty and justice? I think there lays the main difference in the way in which the televising will differ. No one is out to make a mockery of the courts by televising it. But I do think it will be of much interest to a lot of people, myself included. It can also give people an opportunity to better understand others, their behaviours and their motives. Hopefully, this education, however slight or prevalent will help those who watch to better judge situations they find themselves in by recognising expression, emotion and tone in others and themselves.

Personally, I feel many people can learn a lot by the court trials being televised. Those who are not interested simply will not watch them, not unlike many who already dismiss programmes on tv.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I have to agree with idi ,i think it will be very educational fo anybody .Alot of people who have had no experience in courts or the legal system will find it very interesting and being able to see the true side of things as opposed to the media version will be an added bonus

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Believe what you like. I really don't think there will be any improvement to our judicial system whatever checks and balances are introduced mainly because I don't think the system is that bad the way it is.My actual solution to obtain justice would be for the media to not be able to publish any names of anyone charged and prosecuted until they are found guilty.

I'd like less media involvement.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I totally agree that the media should stop lynching people just because they have their name. Take the recent case of Joanna Yeates and her landlord. Unfortunately, this all happens before cases even get to court, so televised or not, it will already have happened.

But I do think a lot can be learned from trials being televised Court cases. Be it about the system, techniques or people.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Having recently completed my Jury Service I found it fascinating how the system works.

I sat on a criminal trial which was pretty much sealed as the guy was on cctv. I then sat on a civil case between a lad and the Police where he was sueing them as his arm had been broken during his arrest.

Both were held in public.

If televising the proceedings discourages one person from wasting court time it would be worth it

On the other hand it might encourage people not to try and weedle out of Jury service. ;)

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

Actually the Attorny General has already addressed the idea of names not being published in cases like Joanna Yeates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12736586

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I was only agreeing with your comment about not publishing names... I'm not so proud as to not accept someone else might say something with sense! :)

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I was just saying that there was some chance of something being done along those lines..:)

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

I'm all for it, especially when no one has even been charged.

Re: televised court cases ..for or against
 

can we have a poll on this? - it would be good to get an idea of numbers at a glance.