Should Criminal Trials Be Telecast?

Introduction:
Public has been provided access to them the bodies that decide the rights and freedoms of people in democratic societies. For example the proceedings of Parliament are available on television and a large number of countries. However the proceedings of the court are not available on television. It has been argued by many that apart from the trials where restrictions have been imposed on the presence of audience due to concerns of national security or the welfare of children, other criminal trials should be telecast on television.

Arguments in favor of:
1. In democratic society, the right to access a court has been provided to all the citizens. People can watch a trial while sitting in the public gallery. In Britain, the judicial proceedings of the House of Lords which is the highest court of the land can also be seen by the members of the public. Therefore there is no constitutional impediment in telecasting the trial going on in a court of law. Very few people have the time to go to the court and watch the criminal trial due to time constraints. Moreover, traveling to a court also costs money and there are only limited seats available in the public gallery in the courts. The persons willing to witness highly publicized trials are sometimes required to arrive in many hours in advance so that they can get a seat in the public gallery of the courtroom. Therefore the telecast of the trials on television would allow the people to enjoy their democratic rights without wasting their time and money. To make the telecast of criminal trials more fruitful and enriching experience, a commentary of the proceedings could also be added to the telecast. In the age of modern technology, television and Internet can play an important role in enhancing the rights of the people.

2. The reasons behind the telecast of the proceedings of Parliament also apply to the telecast of criminal trials. The laws made in the Parliament are developed in the courtrooms. The doctrine of precedent is also widely used in common law countries. This allows the impact of an earlier decision on the outcome of a subsequent case. In this way, the decisions of the court have a significant impact on the lives of people, almost similar to the way, the decisions of the Parliament impact the lives of the people. Therefore people have a right to know regarding these decisions. Although new law is not established by every case, still people should know how the law is applied in these cases.

3. It can also be argued that the confidence of the people in the system of justice can be improved by installing cameras in courtrooms. Most of the people have not seen the proceedings of the court and for these people judiciary is like a closed club. The competence and the sensitivity of the majority of judges can also be exhibited by telecasting the proceedings of the court. This becomes important as the judges have also been making significant efforts to improve their public profile.

4. The telecast of criminal trial can also be an answer to the hysteria and sensationalism that is sometimes attached to get the coverage of trials by the print media. People will be able to see directly the evidence produced and the demeanor of the defendant and will not have to rely on the reports of the journalists and the sketches made by courtroom artists. The public will get much more accurate information with the help of the telecast of criminal trials.

5. The trial process will also be improved by the telecast of its proceedings as public monitoring will act as a considerable incentive for the judiciary as well as the lawyers to enhance efficiency and strictly adhered to good standards of behavior. An example would be given of the British Houses of Parliament, where the quality of debate improved significantly after cameras were introduced in both the houses. Therefore, similar benefits can also be expected in case of the installation of cameras in the courtrooms.

6. The video recordings of trial proceedings can prove immensely helpful to the defendants as well as the judiciary. It has been seen that the judges at the appeal courts are usually reluctant to question the quality of evidence which has been produced by the witnesses during the trial because they are not able to see the evidence that it was being given. Therefore it limits the right of appeal. On the other hand, the appeal court judges will be able to assess the body language, demeanour and the overall impression given by other witnesses by watching the video recordings of the trial as these cannot be included in a written transcript but are necessary to evaluate the authenticity of evidence.

Arguments Against:
1. The telecast of criminal trial creates a conflict between the democratic rights of the people and the liberty of the defendants. Our legal system considers the defendant innocent, till proven guilty by a court of law. With the telecast of criminal trials, the public may make decisions regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant before a final verdict by the court. The telecast of criminal trials may result in pre judgments by the public regarding the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Even if an accused is acquitted subsequently, he or she would have been exposed to public reaction may be largely unjustified. Such an accused, even though acquitted by the court, would have suffered loss of anonymity and the chances of future appointment. This will be against the principles of rehabilitation as it forms the core of present penal policy. Therefore the rights of the defendant need to be placed ahead of the rights of general public to watch criminal trials on television. Moreover, many people are just looking for entertainment and thrill, instead of any education from court proceedings. Therefore the liberty of the individuals should not be jeopardized in search of real life courtroom thrillers.

2. All the courts do not have the same role in the development of law. Generally the courts involved in this process are the courts of appeal and the Supreme Courts and the Judiciary Committee of the House of Lords. But the television channels are not interested in covering the hearings before these courts as the witnesses and their cross-examination or emotional speeches addressed to the jury are not present here but the proceedings only include the legal arguments. These are the proceedings of the lawyers and are primarily carried out by the lawyers. Very few members of the general public will have an understanding of these proceedings.

3. The telecast of criminal trials can cause harm to the system of justice. A large number of victims are already deterred by the prospect of giving evidence in the court and the victims will find it much more difficult to narrate the painful experience when they know that millions of people are watching them on television. In this way, many victims can be deterred from giving evidence and eventually it results in a fall in the confidence that they have in the system of justice. The telecast of criminal trials may also encourage the witnesses and the jurors to become involved in coverage of the trial by the media and the reliability of the evidence given by the witnesses and the verdict of the jurors can be impacted by it. The law does not allow the disclosure of proceedings in the jury room or even the opinion of the jurors regarding the persons who are involved in the case. We have seen that the newspaper interviews of witnesses have already resulted in the abandonment of many trials. Telecast of criminal trials can encourage the distortion of true recollection by the witnesses and the jurors.

4. The example of Court TV in America shows that the sensationalist elements can also pervade on the television coverage of criminal trials. The trials involving serious crimes continue for a long time and some kind of editorial discretion may be required so that a brief and informative program can be produced. The newspaper reports are able to summarize the whole proceedings of the court, emphasizing all parts of the trial, there are chances that the cameras may highlight a particular event which may not represent the entirety of the proceedings.

5. The judiciary and the lawyers are already sufficiently accountable. The lawyers are self-employed and their chances of continuing in work depend on the quality of their performance. On the other hand, although the judiciary has a security of tenure, still their competence is regularly monitored in the form of reports of the solicitors and barristers who appeared before them. Therefore it will not be prudent to make the lawyers and judges more accountable to the public who is not conversant with legal matters through the television. It can also be argued that by installing the cameras in the House of Commons, a ‘sound bite politics’ has emerged, particularly during the ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’. This has led to the comments which sounds striking on news bulletins and the depth of analysis and discussion have taken a hit. In the criminal trial, every issue needs to be investigated minutely so that the guilt or innocence of the defendant can be determined. This search for truth will not be helped by pithy comments aimed at attracting attention through the cameras.

6. The Crown Court trials in Britain are already recorded so that they can help the lawyers and judges were involved in a potential appeal. Moreover, each and every word in the courtroom is also recorded by a stenographer. In such a case, the video recording of criminal trials is not necessary. In the common law system, the jurors to try the facts and the judge only advise them and apply the relevant law. Therefore overturning the verdict of jury with the help of video recording will require significant changes in the criminal justice system.