televised court cases ..for or against - Page 2

Will21st · 20-03-2011, 18:31

I'm FOR it,with restrictions...

**Maggy** · 20-03-2011, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

Why not just attend court at first hand?

idi banashapan · 20-03-2011, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Why not just attend court at first hand?

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.

idi banashapan · 20-03-2011, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Why not just attend court at first hand?

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....

**Maggy** · 21-03-2011, 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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....

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.

idi banashapan · 21-03-2011, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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?

**Maggy** · 21-03-2011, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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?

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.

idi banashapan · 21-03-2011, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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.

21-03-2011, 19:24

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

**Maggy** · 21-03-2011, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

idi banashapan · 21-03-2011, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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.

Julian · 21-03-2011, 20:10

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.

**Maggy** · 21-03-2011, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

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

idi banashapan · 21-03-2011, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

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!

**Maggy** · 21-03-2011, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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!

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