Even though cameras and news media are allowed, in the courtroom is it fair? The defendant does not receive a fair trial with the news media and cameras in the courtroom because of distorted evidence and biased opinions. The news media and the cameras are not always helpful in a case. They sometimes distort the evidence that is being presented to the courts.
The defendant does not receive a fair trial when the media is in the courtroom. The media distorts the evidence that is being presented to the courts. The news media tries the defendant before the actual trial. The news media has already formed their jurisdiction concerning the defendant based on a biased opinion. The news media affects the way the jury renders their verdict. "According to Lassiter (1965) it is clear that the notoriety of a case, made evident by television coverage, can alter the jury's determinative process". If the jury sees or reads the news paper they are not focusing on what evidence that is being presented at that particular time. The jury will think more about what they have heard from the news media. When the jury renders their verdict it is not a fair one. They have formed their opinion about the defendant due to what they have heard from the news media.
The news media will expose and distort the private matters of the defendant. "According to Lassiter (1965), it is clear that the invasiveness of court cameras exposes the private matters of the defendant. So the seating in the court room is limited".
"It is important to ensure criminal defendants receive a fair trial and are not victims of emotionalism or fear. In the U.S. viewers often see interviews with case participants who are placing their self-serving interpretation of events before the public as fact. This enables the accusers to perfect their story while not under oath and to a bias public opinion against a defendant who typically is under legal advice not to speak publicly" (Roschwalb 1994).
Should the cameras be allowed in the courtroom or not? Will the cameras be used to give the defendant a fair trial or will they use them to get footage for entertainment?
"In a democratic society, the supreme court has noted, the press fulfills the important function of informing the public about the judicial process consequently, the media carry the ethical obligation not to impair criminal trial proceedings deliberately Ultimately, the responsibility to ensure fairness rests with the trial court (Roshwalb 1994).
The closed-circuit cameras were supposed to just make sure that the trial was fair and not biased.
"One of the earliest forerunners of modern televised trials was the case involving the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby in 1935. Media attention was intense and the judge ultimately barred cameras from the courtroom because of the broadcast media's chaotic coverage. The purpose of the court is not education or to speculate or public entertainment but justice. As every student of communication knows, when you change the audience, you change the proceeding" (Lassiter 1995). When attorney's has to speak to a large group of people and it should not affect them in any kind of way. There should be restrictions on cameras in the courtroom.
Cannon 35 said:
"Proceeding in the court should be conducted within the court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the courtroom during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceeding, degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect there to in mind of public and should not be permitted"(McHam 2009).
Video cameras should not be allowed in
the courtroom because they can sell the trial for profit and whoever buys the video they will take it and make a movie out of the case especially if it is a criminal trial. The defendant does not receive a fair trial because the news media is the courtroom and sometimes distracts the judge and witness.
"Court rule no. 16 states that the news media has to get permission from the courts to broadcast, televising recording and photographing before any of this can take place. It depends on the courts and the circumstances whether the judge will allow one or two people in the courtroom during the trial. If the judge allows the media in the courtroom their cameras has to be on a tripod and they has to set up where the judge allows them to set their equipment. In general the media coverage of prospective jurors, jurors and jury selection is prohibited. There shall be not audio pickup or broadcast of conferences in a court proceeding between attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel between counsel and the judge held at the bench or in chambers or between judges in an appellate proceeding. There shall be no focusing on photographing of materials on counsel tables; however the media will be given access during periods of recess to exhibits that have been introduced and received into evidence, absent objection from counsel in the proceedings. The quantity and types of equipment permitted in the courtroom shall be subject to the discretion of the judge within the guide lines set out in this Court Operating Rule No.16 (The Judicial Branch of State Government 1965).
The public has the right to know what goes on in the courtroom operations. The media argues they use the first amendment in the courtroom, but they ignore the fact, they violate another human's rights to a fair trial. "According to Lassiter (1995) it is clear the public has the right to know what is going on in a criminal trial to a certain degree as long as it is not interfering with the defendant's rights to a fair trial".
The news paper articles about the trial affect the judge and the witnesses therefore interfering with the rights to a fair trial. The news paper affects the judge's decision about the defendant before he is found guilty. The newspaper can alter the way the judge thinks about the defendant when reading articles about the trial.
"Witness credibility; one certain result of televising real courtroom drama will be legal challenges to the fairness of the trial based on the presence of cameras. In-court cameras raise the marketing consciousness of the witnesses. The testimony of witnesses who know they will appear on television may suddenly become, in their mind, valuable less for what it may mean for justice and more for its entertainment value (read cash value). Cameras in the courtroom blur the distinction between justice and entertainment and may attempt witnesses to embellish their testimony to appeal the paying media, therefore this is witness tampering" (Lassiter 1995).
The defendant does not receive a fair trial with the news media and the cameras in the courtroom because of distorted evidence and biased opinion. When the witness sees the cameras they change their statements hoping to make some money. Majority of the time it will hurt the defendant. The media can help the defendants with a fair trial if the cameras are used to check out what the witness had said on the witness stand to go along with the statement that was already given.
The defendant does not receive a fair trial when the media is in the courtroom. The media distorts the evidence that is being presented to the courts. The news media tries the defendant before the actual trial. The news media has already formed their jurisdiction concerning the defendant based on a biased opinion. The news media affects the way the jury renders their verdict. "According to Lassiter (1965) it is clear that the notoriety of a case, made evident by television coverage, can alter the jury's determinative process". If the jury sees or reads the news paper they are not focusing on what evidence that is being presented at that particular time. The jury will think more about what they have heard from the news media. When the jury renders their verdict it is not a fair one. They have formed their opinion about the defendant due to what they have heard from the news media.
The news media will expose and distort the private matters of the defendant. "According to Lassiter (1965), it is clear that the invasiveness of court cameras exposes the private matters of the defendant. So the seating in the court room is limited".
"It is important to ensure criminal defendants receive a fair trial and are not victims of emotionalism or fear. In the U.S. viewers often see interviews with case participants who are placing their self-serving interpretation of events before the public as fact. This enables the accusers to perfect their story while not under oath and to a bias public opinion against a defendant who typically is under legal advice not to speak publicly" (Roschwalb 1994).
Should the cameras be allowed in the courtroom or not? Will the cameras be used to give the defendant a fair trial or will they use them to get footage for entertainment?
"In a democratic society, the supreme court has noted, the press fulfills the important function of informing the public about the judicial process consequently, the media carry the ethical obligation not to impair criminal trial proceedings deliberately Ultimately, the responsibility to ensure fairness rests with the trial court (Roshwalb 1994).
The closed-circuit cameras were supposed to just make sure that the trial was fair and not biased.
"One of the earliest forerunners of modern televised trials was the case involving the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby in 1935. Media attention was intense and the judge ultimately barred cameras from the courtroom because of the broadcast media's chaotic coverage. The purpose of the court is not education or to speculate or public entertainment but justice. As every student of communication knows, when you change the audience, you change the proceeding" (Lassiter 1995). When attorney's has to speak to a large group of people and it should not affect them in any kind of way. There should be restrictions on cameras in the courtroom.
Cannon 35 said:
"Proceeding in the court should be conducted within the court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the courtroom during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceeding, degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect there to in mind of public and should not be permitted"(McHam 2009).
Video cameras should not be allowed in
the courtroom because they can sell the trial for profit and whoever buys the video they will take it and make a movie out of the case especially if it is a criminal trial. The defendant does not receive a fair trial because the news media is the courtroom and sometimes distracts the judge and witness.
"Court rule no. 16 states that the news media has to get permission from the courts to broadcast, televising recording and photographing before any of this can take place. It depends on the courts and the circumstances whether the judge will allow one or two people in the courtroom during the trial. If the judge allows the media in the courtroom their cameras has to be on a tripod and they has to set up where the judge allows them to set their equipment. In general the media coverage of prospective jurors, jurors and jury selection is prohibited. There shall be not audio pickup or broadcast of conferences in a court proceeding between attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel between counsel and the judge held at the bench or in chambers or between judges in an appellate proceeding. There shall be no focusing on photographing of materials on counsel tables; however the media will be given access during periods of recess to exhibits that have been introduced and received into evidence, absent objection from counsel in the proceedings. The quantity and types of equipment permitted in the courtroom shall be subject to the discretion of the judge within the guide lines set out in this Court Operating Rule No.16 (The Judicial Branch of State Government 1965).
The public has the right to know what goes on in the courtroom operations. The media argues they use the first amendment in the courtroom, but they ignore the fact, they violate another human's rights to a fair trial. "According to Lassiter (1995) it is clear the public has the right to know what is going on in a criminal trial to a certain degree as long as it is not interfering with the defendant's rights to a fair trial".
The news paper articles about the trial affect the judge and the witnesses therefore interfering with the rights to a fair trial. The news paper affects the judge's decision about the defendant before he is found guilty. The newspaper can alter the way the judge thinks about the defendant when reading articles about the trial.
"Witness credibility; one certain result of televising real courtroom drama will be legal challenges to the fairness of the trial based on the presence of cameras. In-court cameras raise the marketing consciousness of the witnesses. The testimony of witnesses who know they will appear on television may suddenly become, in their mind, valuable less for what it may mean for justice and more for its entertainment value (read cash value). Cameras in the courtroom blur the distinction between justice and entertainment and may attempt witnesses to embellish their testimony to appeal the paying media, therefore this is witness tampering" (Lassiter 1995).
The defendant does not receive a fair trial with the news media and the cameras in the courtroom because of distorted evidence and biased opinion. When the witness sees the cameras they change their statements hoping to make some money. Majority of the time it will hurt the defendant. The media can help the defendants with a fair trial if the cameras are used to check out what the witness had said on the witness stand to go along with the statement that was already given.