The case for welcoming cameras in courtrooms
Published: September 7th 2011 - at 10:54 am
contribution by Ruhi Khan
As a television journalist who has covered some high profile court cases (in India, where cameras are also not allowed in court), the proposal by Ken Clarke will save reporters a lot of work and create transparency in reporting.
I remember running from a court to give a live report and trying to remember the Judge’s exact words and the exact expression of the characters involved, to give the viewers an idea of what happened. It is a herculean task and often open to interpretation by the reporter.
And its not just the words but the descriptions of the accused – what he/she was wearing, whether he was shaven, whether they smiled etc – all have to be conveyed to the graphic designer to create the perfect courtroom sketch.
But most importantly, televised sentencing will bring in transparency and also closure for the victims and those in similar situations. This is particularly important in cases of mass murderers, terrorism or riots where several hundred people need to see for themselves the punishments handed out to their culprits.
But in the US, the most popular case was the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, which millions watched thanks and turned the courtroom into a theatre of the century, as one commentator put it.
But some critics said the witnesses stepped forward only to get their 60 seconds of fame. Another Judge thought some witnesses felt intimidated by the cameras placed less than six feet away.
The cameras can also be a check on autocratic judges and force lawyers to stay within boundaries of acceptable behaviour and prepare better arguments.
It won’t be an easy task to show televised sentencing. You simply cannot have television crews rushing in with cameras into courtrooms. This will only disrupt court proceeding, create chaos and turn it into a carnival.
There will have to be cameras installed in courtroom with feed available to newsrooms. But how do you decide which cases are important to broadcast? Is it fair to only broadcast sentencing? What about acquittal? And then why just show the end and not the entire trial?
Unless these questions are answered and hopefully with well researched alternatives, rejoicing on Cameron’s decision to welcome TV cameras in court is simply premature.
—-
Ruhi Khan blogs here. She has worked as a journalist in Mumbai and London in both print and broadcast media. A Jefferson fellow and recipient of the Mary Morgan Hewitt Award for Women in Journalism in 2008, Ruhi currently lives in London and writes on campaigning issues.
As a television journalist who has covered some high profile court cases (in India, where cameras are also not allowed in court), the proposal by Ken Clarke will save reporters a lot of work and create transparency in reporting.
I remember running from a court to give a live report and trying to remember the Judge’s exact words and the exact expression of the characters involved, to give the viewers an idea of what happened. It is a herculean task and often open to interpretation by the reporter.
And its not just the words but the descriptions of the accused – what he/she was wearing, whether he was shaven, whether they smiled etc – all have to be conveyed to the graphic designer to create the perfect courtroom sketch.
But most importantly, televised sentencing will bring in transparency and also closure for the victims and those in similar situations. This is particularly important in cases of mass murderers, terrorism or riots where several hundred people need to see for themselves the punishments handed out to their culprits.
But in the US, the most popular case was the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, which millions watched thanks and turned the courtroom into a theatre of the century, as one commentator put it.
But some critics said the witnesses stepped forward only to get their 60 seconds of fame. Another Judge thought some witnesses felt intimidated by the cameras placed less than six feet away.
The cameras can also be a check on autocratic judges and force lawyers to stay within boundaries of acceptable behaviour and prepare better arguments.
It won’t be an easy task to show televised sentencing. You simply cannot have television crews rushing in with cameras into courtrooms. This will only disrupt court proceeding, create chaos and turn it into a carnival.
There will have to be cameras installed in courtroom with feed available to newsrooms. But how do you decide which cases are important to broadcast? Is it fair to only broadcast sentencing? What about acquittal? And then why just show the end and not the entire trial?
Unless these questions are answered and hopefully with well researched alternatives, rejoicing on Cameron’s decision to welcome TV cameras in court is simply premature.
—-
Ruhi Khan blogs here. She has worked as a journalist in Mumbai and London in both print and broadcast media. A Jefferson fellow and recipient of the Mary Morgan Hewitt Award for Women in Journalism in 2008, Ruhi currently lives in London and writes on campaigning issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment