The debate on whether cameras should or should not be allowed inside the courtroom continually stands survival. Despite both careful experiments and actual applications of televising certain court trials, many individuals still remain unmoved in their belief that all court trials must occur in private and out of the public’s eye and scrutiny. Then again, the other party finds that factors related to transparency, consistency, truthfulness, and verification of the trial itself, the court issue, and the people involved in the case must not be undermined as well, hence the apt addition of cameras in the justice system.
This substantial debate was witnessed subsequent to O. J. Simpson’s televised court trial in 1995. Simpson was a former football player and sportscaster, and was accused of killing Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, Simpson’s ex-wife and Brown’s friend, respectively. Due to Simpson’s fame, to the controversial allegation against him, and to the nature of the court trial coverage, the proceeding was phenomenal, unforgettable, contentious, and pronounced. Hence, Brill considered the Simpson trial as a “media circus” (1996).
The “circus” aspect, according to Smolowe, Cohen, Lefferty, and Towle (1995), was attributable to the fact that “media stalking of witnesses, the glut of pop books, the glamorization of commentators” arose. Likewise, Neufeld, who was on Simpson’s defense team, even stated that the television coverage instilled an "environment where lawyers start acting out, where judges start acting out, and it's not very healthy for those who are pursuing justice" (as cited in Public Broadcasting Service [PBS], 1998).Don Hewitt of the television show “60 Minutes” deemed that the tendency of a murder trial turning into a television entertainment special distressed the dignity of such grave and significant occurrences, as well (as cited in Smolowe et al. , 1995). Hence, such invitation for public awareness, attention, and opinion served detrimentally to any courtroom event as a whole.
However, the same invitation for public awareness, attention and opinion were what other law professionals considered as the basis for opening court trials to the public.Goldberg explained that the main goal of televised court proceedings was to adequately inform both the jurors and the public with regard to the important components of the case, eventually providing sufficient evidence to the verdict. This is significant, especially when the jurors’ decision is open for assessment and critique by the people. The underlying initial question, thereby, is whether the jurors and the public saw the same case specifics and substantiations in order to optimally and uniformly evaluate court outcomes (1996).Having cameras in the courtroom enables answering this question and budges such kinds of judgments into a higher and more efficient level.
In addition, Smolowe et al. (1995) mentioned that the presence of cameras equalize the monopoly of information accounted for by the media. Not only do restrictions from court trial feedback retract from being focused on only some members of the press to a wider press population, it also extends awareness to the general public. A more comprehensive and accurate case analysis is also allowed in this courtroom set-up.The Simpson trial, said CNN Field Produced Wade Ricks, was merely an eccentric form of court proceeding because of the frenzy that the media initially placed on the issue. He claimed that “trials can be handled in a thoughtful manner so that they instruct, enlighten and entertain” (as cited in Smolowe et al.
, 1995). The inconvenience experienced by witnesses due to the media, exaggeration of resources related to the case, and the celebrity-like undertakings of the commentators and other justice personnel were therefore all controllable as long as these were managed appropriately by the authorities concerned.Moreover, Brill noted that the tendency of attorneys and jurors to become dramatic is normal, in that these individuals can “showboat even without cameras” (1996). There is no correlation between the televising court proceedings and the acting out of law professionals and those involved in the case. Lastly, televised court trials are not a renunciation of dignity from the issue and from the people concerned. Rather, it is an exemplification of the freedom and right of the public to know what is happening.
Jane Kirtley, from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, emphasized that justice proceedings are the people’s business and should not be limited from them. She called that of Simpson’s as the “People vs. O. J. Simpson” trial (as cited in Smolowe et al.
, 1995). Additionally, the fact that the states of Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Dakota all allow coverage of court trials signifies that such is not a bad idea.As long as moral, suitable, sufficient, and proper courtroom coverage is applied, then televising proceedings are better present than absent nowadays. These cameras can indeed contribute in the achievement of fair and just outcomes, principally since fair and just awareness was effectively reached prior to gaining a verdict. After all, court proceeding coverage is “a constitutional right and not merely a favor that the courts or legislatures may grant or take away at will” (Teresi, 2000; as cited in Wall, 2008).
