Cameras coming to federal courts starting next month
They're going to allow cameras in some federal trial courtrooms in 14 districts around the country beginning on July 18. Electronic media devices have been banned in all federal district courts, most federal appeals courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court for many decades now, but the judiciary is now begrudgingly letting them into the district courts for three years on an experimental basis under tight restrictions.
Only civil cases will be covered, only if both parties consent, and they won't be "live." Here on the West Coast, they'll be in Seattle and San Francisco only.
Sheesh, can you spare it?
Not allowing small, unobtrusive video cameras and microphones in courtrooms has always seemed a bad policy to us. The public should get to see just about all that goes on in the legal system, with limited exceptions for things like the appearances and identities of confidential informers and jurors. Reliance on the mainstream media to gather and report all the newsworthy stories developing in our judicial system is a vain hope -- particularly these days, as organized media is falling apart at the seams.
As much as some of the old timers on the bench want it to fail, "televising" court proceedings (if that's even the right word for it any more) is long overdue, and will do much more good than harm. Let's hope it finds its way to the Oregon courts -- all of them -- soon.
| Posted at 10:45 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (9)
Live streaming of public proceedings should be the norm in a free and open society.
Posted by Molly | June 9, 2011 10:59 AM
This sounds like a good idea and long overdue.
Now, what about the various secret tribunals, star chambers and judicial black holes that our government has established in the so-called "War on Terror"?
Posted by none | June 9, 2011 10:59 AM
Please don't get me started. And Obama's as bad as Bush on that stuff.
Posted by Jack Bog | June 9, 2011 11:46 AM
Just what are the reasons stated for not allowing video in the courtroom?
Posted by dean | June 9, 2011 12:03 PM
Just what are the reasons stated for not allowing video in the courtroom?
The only one that makes any sense to me is the argument that it might change what happens. And that cuts both ways.
Posted by Allan L. | June 9, 2011 12:42 PM
Law has consistently had a habit of taking awhile to catch-up to technology. I will save my speculations on why that is because tact is sometimes the better part of valor.
Posted by LucsAdvo | June 9, 2011 1:13 PM
Reliance on the mainstream media to gather and report all the newsworthy stories developing in our judicial system is a vain hope -- particularly these days, as organized media is falling apart at the seams.
Amen to that!
Posted by AL M | June 9, 2011 3:55 PM
Just what are the reasons stated for not allowing video in the courtroom?
How about this: Courtrooms are a crucible with one objective, that being finding the truth. And if the truth is found, then we say "justice has been done." With cameras the dynamics change, and not for the better. Cameras present, people behave differently, whether they be witnesses, the lawyers, jurors, and even the judge (Lance Ito, anyone?). Cameras become a distraction and justice the victim.
That's the argument. And I must say I am sympathetic to it. Does it mean courtrooms are "closed" and not a "public" proceeding? Nah, they're still open to live viewing by live audiences.
Posted by boycat | June 10, 2011 6:56 AM
"Cameras present, people behave differently"
If cameras are visible, I can undersand. What if they are not visible?
Posted by Mike (one of the many) | June 11, 2011 8:42 AM