Court room on TV

So did anyway watch the clips of todays historic first scenes from a court room and feel they had any better understanding of justice from it?

I thought it wasn't worth the effort myself and focusing on a middle aged judge rather than the perpetrator means you miss the aspect that is crucial to TV - the reaction shot. Today's reports were very much about the cameras - not the sentencing, and there is little point in having footage when nine times out of ten the presenter/reporter leading into the footage will reveal the sentence anyway.

It's a courtroom, not a drama. It doesn't need a reaction shot and that's why cameras should not be allowed in courtrooms. It will just glamourise the process, and a pretty boring process at that.

The best way to do this is to have someone trained in the court, switching cameras in a fair and unbiased way, and to televise the whole of a trial. These court cases to be shown on screens within and outside the court, and a channel where you can see the cases as they happen. This footage can not be edited by broadcasters who either dip into live coverage, or broadcast the sentencing as provided to the broadcasters.

Although I do think filming judges, witnesses, victims and even the defendant could ultimately jeopardise trials I kind of agree with you mdtauk. The footage we've seen today, even within a report, didn't feel like it was in context and if it is about enabling the public to understand the legal system it needs to be seen from start to finish (although I don't want our news channels full of it!). For now though at the least I think the summing up stage also needs to be filmed - that at least gives some kind of overview of both sides of the case.

I found it very interesting to see. I absolutely don't wish to see the "reaction" of the accused (how could that be considered crucial to anything?).

Although I'd heard judges summing up relayed by reporters or even other representatives of families in the past, there was such gravitas that came from the judge explaining in unequivocal terms the nature of the crime, and why that has led to the judgement.

Ended up a wee bit shaken, actually, especially as I had a (very arms-length) connection with this case.

Very happy not to see the defendant. I think their reaction/interpretation/resolve or even regret may be too evocative for those connected with the case; where the judge has the authority and decorum you would hope for given the often harrowing facts of a case.

My concern would be that as soon as cameras are allowed any further than judges that parties to the case will play up to the cameras and I think that would work against justice.

It is no good if this means justice appearing to be done but in fact isn't.

We've seen the OJ trial, the Jackson trial, the Jackson doctor trial, and now the Breivik trial, not to mention Judge Judy and the like, plus inquests and hearings like the Hutton Inquiry and the current Leveson Inquiry. This internationally aware TV generation has seen it all before.

While it is fascinating from a culturally sociological point of view (the voyeur complex, ultimate reality TV etc), I don't think anything more is gained by having an image of the speaker rather than just sound/quotes and chalk drawings / graphic mockups. Unlike Parliament (which has a lot of peripheral action, reaction and gesture), court proceedings are on the whole choreographed, structured and ordered. Anything that happens in the courtroom that affects proceedings is documented, and recorded. Therefore it's basically scripted, with only one voice at any one time, even in heated cross-examination.

It's not needed in my opinion.

I was disappointed not to see all the court room.
If it this experiment continues perhaps the courts and broadcasters can agree on some basic "rules" - a bit like when Parliament was first televised - no close-ups or reaction shots for example.
The little zoom in to the judge I felt was in poor taste and served no function - this is a real event not a staged drama after all.
So for those of us interested in law I'd keep to wide shots and not showing the jury or public gallery.

The British and American criminal justice systems and courtrooms are completely different.

Possibly in no small part precisely because they are televised - OJ being the prime example.

David

Yes - for example, the word is court, not courtroom, in this country. Also, Judge Judy is not an example of the court system - it is an example of prive arbitation.

This country's judicial system, as has quite rightly been said, is completely different to that of the USA. It is so poorly represented on television in this country, I reckon most people think that judges use gavels.