• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
A short note on cameras in the courtrooms
 
Deepti Sinha
Justice may be being done, it is not necessarily being seen to be done and justice must be seen to be believed.[1]The biggest challenge that is faced by proponents of allowing camera trials in courtrooms is the fact that with camerasin courts, it is an increasingly difficult task to ensure a proper balance between the rights of the accused and fair trial.Testimony to this fact is the trials of Michael Jackson and O J Simpson in USA. Cameras were allowed in these trialsand it only became a media-created circus. It is highly detrimental if a legal system is allowed to become entertainmentfor the public. It beats the defence of making the public well informed by broadcasting trials. According to a US judge, Ithink theres something sick about making entertainment out of real peoples legal problems.[2]Referring to thetelevised trials of Michael Jackson and O.J.Simpson Justice Michael Kirby observed:
These are the ingredients of entertainment, not really news or information. The legal process in an actual trial isreduced to glitz, glamour and spectacle. The accused is offered up upon a global altar, as the star of this week''s soapopera. The O J Simpson trial was an even bigger phenomenon in this genre. The judiciary which becomes caught upin such entertainment, by the public televising of its process, will struggle (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) tomaintain the dignity and justice that is the accused''s due. But these are not the media''s concerns. Jurists should be inno doubt that the media''s concerns are entertainment, money-making and, ultimately, the assertion of the media''s power.
[3]On the other hand, several hold the view that cameras in the court rooms would prove to be beneficial as it wouldallow transparency in the judicial system and would help open justice to the scrutiny of all. The most obvious of theadvantages is that a free and fair trial would include the aspect of public knowledge within it. For the most part,television remains the closest medium of making the public a part of criminal trial - practically speaking. Furthermore,the fourth estate of democracy needs to be free and it should be allowed to gather and disseminate information.Secondly, televising trials will ensure another layer of protection to the fairness of it. If the judges and the lawyers knowthat the whole world has access to the proceedings, then it will ensure that the trials are being conducted in a free andfair manner. According to a report in United Kingdom, almost 96% of all criminal cases are completed in themagistrates courts.[4]Letting the cameras into these courts would seem to be the way to inform the public about the way the system works. Again most cases do not go to trial but the public would still see how cases are heard andsentences passed down. Moreover, when we can have the proceedings of Parliament televised then why we canthave a similar channel for justice.In the year 2004, the government in UK launched a consultation paper to discuss the pros and cons of introducingcameras in English and Welsh courtrooms. Some lawyers welcomed the plans to allow television cameras into Englishand Welsh courts on the ground that the opening up of court proceedings will play an important role in building publicconfidence in the legal system. Some judges also agreed that televising trials could increase the public understandingof the judicial system.[5]Televising criminal proceedings was also favoured on the ground that filming trials for  archiving and educational purposes can be significant in appeal cases and for research purposes.However, while supporting the fact of televising criminal proceedings it should not be forgotten that televising criminaltrials is quite different from televising public inquiries. There are currently no legal bars to bringing cameras into aninquiry, and the stubbornness of some judges not withstanding, there is a growing awareness that the fears that thepresence of cameras in courts would sway witnesses, have proved unfounded. Even then, a criminal trial wheresomeones liberty is at stake is very different from a public inquiry.First of all there are concerns about privacy. People giving witness in criminal trials would not feel free and would havefear in their minds if the criminal proceeding were televised. The judicial system in India is already facing flak for notproviding enough security to witnesses who, due to various reasons, turn hostile, leading to acquittals of manyaccused. This has happened in several high profile cases like Jessica Lal, Priyadarshini Mattoo and the Best Bakerytrial.Another major deterrent in making trials public is the fact that judges will lose a degree of anonymity, raising securityconcerns. The whole world will become privy to their identity, which can hamper a fair trial. In recent years, we havealready witnessed judges coming under a lot of pressure in certain high profile cases. This situation will only beaggravated if cameras are to be allowed inside courts. It may lead to judges being uncomfortable while hearing a caseand in extreme cases even lead to withdrawing from them. It has already been rumoured in leading Indian newspaperslike The Times of India in Jessica Lal case that the judge in the lower court was influenced by the political clout of theaccused, although nothing could be conclusively proved. Furthermore, it is not only the judges security that is a matter of concern.The judicial conference in the US[6]opposed a legislation that sought to televise court trials on these very grounds.On the other hand, several hold the view that cameras in the court rooms would prove to be beneficial as it wouldallow transparency in the judicial system and would help open justice to the scrutiny of all.
 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...