FIRT PRELIMINARY ROUND

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE 2023

“THBT CRIMINAL TRIALS SHOULD BE TELEVISED”

TEMPLATE

FIRST SPEAKER OF THE GOVERNMENT

- STRESSING THE TOPIC THROUGH CURRENT ISSUE

- WELCOME SPEECH.
- INTRODUCE YOURSELF
- INRODUCE THE TOPIC AND YOUR IDEA (MY TEAM AND I ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT THAT
“THBT CRIMINAL TRIALS SHOULD BE TELEVISED)
- STATE YOU3 3 MAIN’S CLAIMS.
- STATE TOUR PREVIEW OF THE SPEECH STRUCTURE.
- CONCLUSION;
1. REITERATE YOUR STANCE
2. URGE THE AUDIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR SIDE

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS, LORD NEUBERGER, HAS ARGUED, IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT OUR COURTS
ARE OPEN AS A MATTER OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE: IT HAS TO BE A REALITY. THIS ARGUMENT HAS
BEEN MADE FOR MANY YEARS; IN 1924, VISCOUNT HEWART, THEN LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, STATED
THAT “JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE, BUT SHOULD MANIFESTLY AND UNDOUBTEDLY BE
SEEN TO BE DONE.” Today, we are the supporting government doing the same thing, but before that,
Assalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh, and good morning towards the panel adjudicators, time keepers,
holy speakers, and people of the floor.
My name is Rafhanah Binti Usman, as my team and I are from the government team, we are proud to support and
make it clear with our team stands for in today’s motion as this house believes that “Criminal Trials Should Be
Televised”. Later, my deputies will refute miscluded points coming from their side, and give their own positive
arguments.
We, the government team claim the 3 main arguments and they are;

1. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

2. DETERRENCE AND CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
3. PUBLIC EDUCATION

THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT I WILL DO IN MY SPEECH, AS AT FIRST I WILL DEFINE THE TERMS OF
THE MOTION AND SECONDLY RAISE ON MY FIRST ARGUMENT, THAT (FIRST POINT).

TO START WITH THE DEFINITION, A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS A LEGAL PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE IN A
COURT OF LAW TO DETERMINE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF A PERSON ACCUSED OF COMMITTING
A CRIME. IT IS A FORMAL PROCEEDING WHERE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED, WITNESSES ARE CALLED,
AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS ARE MADE BY THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE TRIAL, A VERDICT IS REACHED BY A JUDGE OR A JURY, DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION, AND
IF THE ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY, A SENTENCE MAY BE IMPOSED.

A TELEVISED CRIMINAL IS
The recent Crown Court ( Recording and Broadcasting ) Order 2020 has allowed serious and high-profile criminal
cases in the Crown Courts of England and Wales to be televised , such as that involving murder , sexual offences ,
and terrorism which available to the public via television or an online platform .

NOW, I WILL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND PART OF MY SPEECH AS TO DELIVER MY FIRST ARGUMENT
AND THAT IS, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESSIBILITY .

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESSIBILITY

Having said that, the trials to be shown on television have added advantage to our democracy. Televising the trials
ensures transparency, accountability, public understanding and openness as well. It is to allow citizens to discuss,
criticize, endorse, castigate or applaud the conduct of the criminal proceedings encourages accessibility, impartially,
effectiveness, thus ensuring rule of law and justice that is the mainstay of our democracy. This transparency fosters
trust in the justice system as citizens can witness the application of the law and see that justice is being served in an
open and impartial manner. It also holds judges, attorneys, and other participants accountable for their actions, as
their conduct is on public display.

In 1925, the year that John Logie Baird gave the first public demonstration of his television on the first
floor of Selfridges, section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 was enacted to prohibit photography in court, later
acknowledged to extend to film recording. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke's announcement on 6 September 2011 that
courts will be opened up to television cameras "to demystify the process" therefore heralds the end of an 85-year ban
on the glare of the camera lens. Demystifying courts must be the right way to promote transparency and confidence
in the justice system.

As Lord Neuberger MR said :

“ If we wish to increase public confidence in the justice system , transparency and engagement , there is undoubtedly
something to be said for televising some hearing , provided that there were proper safeguards to ensure that this
increased access did not undermine the proper administration . “

Broadcasting criminal trials allows for greater access to justice. It enables individuals who are unable to
physically attend the courtroom to still observe the proceedings, including victims, families, and the wider public.
This accessibility helps to ensure that justice is seen to be done and fosters a sense of inclusivity and participation in
the legal process. This accountability discourages misconduct, ensures adherence to legal procedures, and acts as a
check against any potential abuse of power. Televising trials also provides an avenue for post-trial analysis and
discussion, encouraging legal experts and the public to evaluate the outcomes and consider potential areas for
improvement.

DETERRENCE AND CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM:

Televising criminal trials can serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. When individuals witness the legal
consequences faced by those who have committed crimes, it can discourage them from engaging in similar behavior.
This deterrent effect contributes to public safety by potentially reducing the incidence of criminal behavior.

Plus, televising criminal trials helps to maintain and enhance public confidence in the justice system. By providing
transparency and allowing the public to witness courtroom proceedings, it enables individuals to see firsthand how
justice is administered and ensures that the process is fair and impartial. This transparency helps to dispel any doubts
or suspicions about the fairness of the system and demonstrates that justice is being served. When the public has
confidence in the justice system, it fosters trust and cooperation with law enforcement and encourages citizens to
report crimes and cooperate as witnesses.

1. PUBLIC EDUCATION:

There are several reasons behind the criminal trials to put live on television. The major portion of citizens
has no personal experience with the legal system.So the portrayal of justice on electronic media can promote
the individual’s understanding of the criminal trial proceedings.A very good example here is Charles
Schumer, a senator of the United States of America. He argued, “Courts are an important part of our
government, and the more our government institutions are shown to the public, the more dignified they
become, and the more the public comes to understand them”.

Televised trials provide an opportunity for the public to learn about the legal process and courtroom procedures.
Viewers can observe how evidence is presented, witnesses are examined, and legal arguments are made. This
firsthand exposure to the workings of the justice system helps individuals understand the steps involved in a
trial, the roles of different participants, and the standards of evidence required for a conviction.Television
coverage of criminal trials can disseminate legal information to a wider audience. The public can gain
knowledge about various legal concepts, principles, and precedents that emerge during the course of the trial.
This information can help citizens better understand their rights, responsibilities, and the implications of the law
in their daily lives.

TO SUM UP, MY TEAM AND I STRONGLY BELIEVE WITH THE MOTION THAT “THBT CRIMINAL TRIALS
SHOULD BE TELEVISED”. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

SECOND SPEAKER OF THE GOVERNMENT

- PROVIDE REBUTTAL
- DELIVER THE SECOND MAIN ARGUMENT

THIRD SPEAKER OF THE GOVERNMENT

- REBUILD YOUR TEAM’S ARGUMENTS

- PROVIDE REBUTTALS
- DELIVER THE THIRD MAIN ARGUMENT

POI (POINT OF INFORMATION)

- IS A STATEMENT OR A QUESTION THAT A DEBATOR WOULD ASK THE SPEAKING DEBATOR

DURING THEIR SPEECH
- IS USUALLY USED TO SAY IMPORTANT IDEA THAT CAN HURT THE OPPONENT’S SPEECH
- IS DONE BY GRABBING ATTENTION (STAND UP, RAISE HANDS, SAY YOUR POINTS)

REBUTTAL
 1. BRIEFLY STATE THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE REFUTING.
2. EXPRESS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENT.
3. PROVIDE REASONS FOR THE DISAGREEMENT.
4. BRIEF CONCLUSION.

THE OPPONENT SAYS (STATE THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE REFUTING). HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO
CHALLENGE THIS ARGUMENT AS I BELEVE THAT IT IS FLAW FOR A REASON. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT…….
THEREFORE, WE THINK THAT THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT STAND.
 THBT CRIMINAL TRIALS SHOULD BE TELEVISED

HOW ABOUT THE LENGTH OF VIEW OF PROCEEDING? IS IT FROM THE START TO THE END?
WILL IT SHOWS THE IMAGE OF THE DEFENDERS, WITNESSES AND THE FAMILY IN THE
COURT?

TELEVISED CRIMINAL TRIALS IN MALAYSIA? ANY?

PRO – INCREASING TRANSPARENCY

PRO - THE FAMILY COURT SHOULD BE OPEN TO PUBLIC AND TV AS IT’S THE MOST CORRUPT
COURT IN THE LAND

CONTRA
ON ONE HAND, TRANSPARENCY IS GOOD BUT WHAT IF SOMEONE DIDN’T DO SOMETHING
AND IT WAS PLAYED OUT IN PUBLIC? LET’S IMAGINE THE HUMILIATION OF SOMEONE IN
DTSRESS AND FIGHTING FOR THEIR FREEDOM.