My goal was to shed some light on important issues in
our world today. The issues were in regards to publication bans and cameras in the courtroom.
You know what my views are on the issues because I have
written about it in my blogs.
Your opinions are also important. Feel free to leave
your comment and do not feel that you have to agree with me. We are all
entitled to our opinions and that is what makes the world such an interesting
place.
You cannot be sloppy when dealing with the law. My view is
that law is a complex and important aspect of society that should be maintained
and held at a high standard.
So then why is the US so inconsistent and sloppy when
dealing with criminal cases?
Take the example of the Colorado mass shooting in front of a movie theatre. James Holmes' first court apperance was videotaped.
Skim through the youtube video below. The video was about James' first appearance in court and that appearance was in regards to the advisement of his rights (Mox news, 2012 July).
What is interesting, it that I found an article that discussed how cameras
will not be allowed in the courtroom after his first appearance (Winter, 2012).
The Colorado
court argued that the media will impact the right to a fair trial. The court also argued that videotaping the trial would reduce the importance of the trial (Winter, 2012).
Yes, the above points are all valid as to why cameras should
not be in the courtroom. They are also some of the reasons why Canada has not
implemented such procedures.
However, what is inconsistent in American law is
that they have taped the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials (just to name a couple).
How come all of a
sudden when it came to the James Holmes case they were so adamant that cameras
were not allowed? In my opinion, the United States should set precedent, not
cause confusion and inconsistency.
Are you familiar with the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony case? Do you agree with the "not guilty" verdict of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony? Do you feel that these criminal cases should have been televised?
Here are two youtube video clips of the verdicts when they were being read in front of the court.
I felt like these two cases were more like a media circus then an actual trial. In my opinion, there was too much drama surrounding both these cases and televising them made the problem even worse.
Many people (especially the media) lost sight of the victims. They should have been at the forefront of the case because their lives were taken away from them. Instead, it was more about the publicity and ratings.
Cameras in the courtroom are a terrible idea. It does not bring us justice! Cameras do not protect any of the individuals involved in the trial process.
There are two sides to every issue and the debate over
cameras in the courtroom is a good example of this. I found a youtube video
that examines this issue by giving reasons as to why they should be allowed and
why they shouldn’t. The video is from the television show titled The Agenda with Steve Paikin.
If you have the time, watch the whole video because it is helpful in understanding what deeper issues are involved. If you just want to
skim through it, I recommend that you watch the first seven minutes of the clip
because it outlines the opinions of the individuals who are from the legal
community.
The debate (from the above video clip) included: Ray Wyant, Jamie Chaffe, William
Trudell, May Moran and Jean Cumming (Paikin, 2011 March).
Wyant is a retired provincial judge who is for the idea
of cameras in the courtroom. He feels that it can be used to help educate the
public on the legal processes. He says that if they are used there need to be
rules implemented so it does not become chaotic (Paikin, 2011 March).
Jamie Chaffe is a crown counsel and is against the idea
of cameras in the courtroom. He feels that it would put added pressure on the
witnesses who are required to testify and complicate the legal proceedings
further (Paikin, 2011 March).
William Trudell is a defense counsel and is also against
the idea of cameras in the courtroom. Not using cameras protects the accused,
who if found not guilty, will need to reintegrate back into the community. Televising
such trials would shed a negative light on the accused and therefore
reintegration would be difficult for him or her. Not using cameras in the courtroom is also for
the protection of the jurors who are doing their civic duty and do not need to
be exposed in any way (Paikin, 2011 March).
Mayo Moran is the dean of the University of Toronto law
school and is against the idea of cameras in the courtroom when dealing with
trials. She feels that in some appellate cases they can be allowed as a
teaching tool, but not for criminal matters or complex and emotional cases
(Paikin, 2011 March).
Jean Cumming is an editor in chief for Lexpert magazine
and she feels that cameras should be allowed because that is what the public
and media want (Paikin, 2011 March).
I agree with Ray, Jamie, William and Mayo that cameras
should not be allowed in the courtroom. In my opinion, it would become too
chaotic and trials would lose their main purpose which is to punish the
individual for wrongdoing. I also feel that Canada is not ready for such an
advancement and that we should not implement such technology just because the United
States already has.
I have to disagree with Jean when she said that cameras in the courtroom is what the
public wants. In my opinion, the public is not the media and we should not be generalized
as such. I think the overall opinion of the public is that they want the law in general to function well. This means that the right individuals are punished for the
right reasons.
The media on the other hand, would love to see cameras in the courtroom because
criminal trials will increase their ratings.
Reference
Paikin,
S. (2011, March 24). Cameras in the Courtroom. [Video file]. Retrieved from
While I was researching more about my blog topic, I heard
about the Kate Middleton scandal. The French based magazine titled Closer took pictures of Kate while she
was sun tanning topless in France (Huffington Post, 2012).
The paparazzi always follow Kate Middleton because she is
considered royalty, and I feel that Kate deserves a break. Like the rest of us,
she is human and should be allowed her privacy.
The Editor of Closer
feels that his company has done nothing wrong and that he has every right to
publish the pictures of Kate Middleton (Huffington Post, 2012).
Do you agree or disagree with the editor?
The Royal family has asked a United Kingdom court to
enforce a publication ban against Closer and
the pictures they have in their possession. The court granted the request and agreed
that Closer magazine had no right to
take the photos. The magazine was asked to give the pictures to Kate Middleton
and Prince William. They will be charged eight thousand pounds if further
pictures are released (Sonwalkar, 2012).
Here is a youtube video that I think you should watch to get a better idea about the issue.
Publication bans exist all around the world and I have
given you examples from Canada and the United Kingdom.
In my future posts I will be blogging about cameras in
the courtroom and why (in my view) they are not a good idea.
References
American
Broadcasting Corporation. (2012, September 17).Kate Middleton Topless Photos:
Palace Seeks Publication Ban in UK. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va2vEmt2sI0
Huffington
Post. (2012). Kate Middleton Topless Photos: Nude Images of the Duchess
