Live Justice Comes To the Internet

Hugh Pickens writes "The Boston Globe reports that an experiment in live justice is coming to the Internet, uniting citizen bloggers with the public's right to know in one of Massachusetts's busiest courthouses, Quincy District Court. Dubbed Open Court, the project will operate live cameras and microphones during criminal sessions where the court's proceedings will be streamed live over the Internet at the Open Court website to give the public an unfiltered view of court proceedings while an operating Wi-Fi network serves citizen bloggers who want to post to the Internet. 'The idea is that people can live blog, but they can also tweet,' says John Davidow, executive editor in charge of new media at WBUR, who developed the idea for the project, adding that during the next year, the goal is to move the experiment outside the first session courtroom and to stream criminal and civil trials and small claims cases as well. The project was seeking a busy court and found it in Quincy, where last year the court handled more than 7,000 criminal claims and more than 15,000 civil cases, including more than 1,100 restraining orders, nearly 1,000 substance abuse and mental health cases and more than 1,200 landlord-tenant cases."

Comments

Phone in vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Lines close at 11, this week on America's Got Time.

Do We Really Want This?

[WrongSizeGlass]

This is nice for the press, the bloggers and the curious, but do we really want all court proceedings 'broadcast' in this manner? Are we looking at a future where "live court reporting" takes place complete with ads and commentators? The quality will be even worse than the NFL channel's piss-poor play-by-play coverage of games.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[Eightbitgnosis]

Oh No! Jake has fumbled his chance of getting a reduced sentence after releasing a stream of racist obscenities at the judge and general population. No good Jake

Well Chip, looks to me like someone didn't get their Florida's Natural orange juice this morning

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we don't. That it comes from Massachusetts, home of Romneycare, and was the brain-child of some NPR guy, home of "Republicans are racist" fundraisers, should be enough to prove that.

But even if you don't care about that, the answer is still: No, we don't. Court rooms should be open to interested members of the public. It should be open to the press.

It should not be open to any idiot on the Internet, especially when a trial can badly damage people's reputations even if they are eventually found guilty. (Remember, as far as the public is concerned, it's guilty until magic CSI science proves otherwise. The police never make mistakes in public fairy-land.)

And, hell, just imagine the potential for witness and jury intimidation. Can you imagine being a witness testifying against a rapist? Can you imagine being on a jury, knowing that your "guilty" vote is being broadcast out to every gang member?

There's a difference between "public" and "broadcast to every corner of the globe." Court proceedings should be public so that interested observers can ensure they're fair. They shouldn't be broadcast to the Internet. That's a recipe for disaster.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[Nedmud]

That is not the alternative -- it's the opposite extreme.

Allowing a media free-for-all increases the risk of Jurors getting outside information on the case.

Justice needs oversight; but also also needs to be protected from interference. Optimising justice means finding a tradeoff between these ideals.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[milkmage]

this isn't new. back in the 90's there was a show called CourtTV.. (I think it's still around, but they've changed programming).. anyway. that's all it was: live trial broadcasts. BORING AS HELL.. even if you had an interest in the case... it's like baseball.. 15 minutes of action spread out over a day.. if the judge called a 10 minute recess, you sat there for 10 minutes watching whoever was in the courtroom waste 10 minutes.. there really wasn't any commentary either, except before the court came to order, the end of the day and lunch (or whatever breaks were given).

doubt there will be too many ads.. since nobody will fucking watch it.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[drolli]

no, i dont want to see how people with mental problems or people who are found to have smoked some weed but not sentenced are stigmatized. It wont be long until somebody makes a database and offers a service for possible employers to check against.

Searching for the image or the voice of a person is not science fiction any more.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[lightknight]

Maybe. But then, I enjoy watching C-SPAN. I like the idea of being able to watch what our judges, LEOs, and congress critters are up to.

What I do not like is that a channel (I cannot remember if it was C-SPAN, may have been a different local channel), was recently caught switching views during voting sessions. I think it was the Texas legislature? Anyhow, during the times that the cameras were switched, they would vote, both for themselves and several of their neighbors who were not there. It bothers me that it violated their own state law, it bothers me that for a vote (even a relatively unimportant one), many of those representatives were absent, and it bothers me that the channel was complicit in looking away while these congress critters were engaging in this below-board activity.

It's not "entertainment" like most channels, but like NASA TV (which can be ~boring as all hell), that does not mean it should not be aired. It's a communication medium. If a judge is in bed with law-enforcement or the DA, I'd love to have video evidence of him acting as such. It would be wonderful at his trial.

What I would not like is another propaganda activity, where Justice-TM is shown, but only if the "good guys" are winning. Cutting to a commercial break instead of showing part of the defense would be a source of irritation.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[PopeRatzo]

but do we really want all court proceedings 'broadcast' in this manner?

Of course "we" do. "We" want our justice system to look like the rest of our television. We can be told it's "reality" TV, but like all "reality" TV, there is nothing "real" about it. But if it looks "real-ish" then that's good enough for us. We'll see a satisfying parade of poor black and hispanic faces on their way to our prison system.

Oh, you didn't think you'd see anyone from Goldman Sachs in court on TV, did you? In America, if you make $100 selling (non-prescription) drugs you are public enemy number one and you and your Li'l Wayne-looking self are going to be the "Face of Crime in America" and people will go to sleep trembling with fear that someone who looks like you is going to show up in their world, but if you destroy a $14 trillion economy, stealing hundreds of billions of dollars, putting millions out of work, causing hundreds of thousands to lose their homes and livelihood, their retirement nest-eggs, nobody ever knows your name (but those people whose lives you ruined will all have to pitch in and make sure you never lose a dime).

Fucking "justice on TV". It won't be "justice" they put on TV. First, they'd have to find something resembling "justice" in the United States. No, it'll be circuses for the yokels. Something to watch when NASCAR ain't on. A 21st century minstrel show for teabaggers.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[theNAM666]

I *hope* you are aware that all court records are already databased and searchable by potential employers, regardless of this, and are being sarcastic. Because if not... SlashDot's intelligence level is dropping even faster than I thought.

Re:Do We Really Want This?

[theNAM666]

Yeah, sure. And records can be sealed or expunged later. In reality, once it gets into a private company's database in the US, even if the defendant wins, even if there is a prohibition, certainly if the record is later expunged, it's in the database. The private companies often pick up the court filings daily or weekly, and pay local courts for the privilege-- with no privacy laws to prevent it, the only recourse is to sue, and a poor bloke with little or no education, in fact anyone but the very privileged, are simply "screwed."

The NYT carried an article today about how the credit bureaus keep "VIP" lists of judges and politicians, correcting errors in their credit reports immediately-- while average citizens often spends years trying to correct mistakes, while they are denied credit, loans, leases (for rental property etc.) and even jobs as a result. It's unbelievable and unconscionable, but what the United States has become. I'm glad to have the opportunity to exit whenever I wish.

This will make iding informants a lot easier.

[elucido]

It's only a matter of time before a website like whosarat.com moves in and takes advantage of this live court reporting idea.
Inquiring minds want to know who the snitches are.

The problem with openness

[nacturation]

One issue I see with this is that the average person is going to tune into a section of a criminal trial, hear the prosecution's side of things and tune out, having made up their mind that So-and-so is a criminal. Then they'll start talking about it among their friends, some of whom might blog or tweet about it, and before you know it the person is presumed guilty in the public eye. All that before the defense can cross-examine the first witness. When you're limited to being there in person, there's a barrier to entry that tends to weed out the casual gossiper whose only interest is the soap opera nature of a trial.

Much like how the internet used to be a place where civilized academics and corporate citizens would be able to communicate together, share ideas, and so on. Anyone who wanted to get on the internet had a natural barrier they had to go through -- attend a university, get a job at a connected company, etc. Then the floodgates opened and any yahoo could get online. Now the "lol, fag" level of communication is expected rather than something that trolls did 20 years ago only for the shock value.

Besides which, this isn't really an open court in that it's a one-way communication tool. A true open court should be two-way. Let's have a jury of a few million people who can Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down to decide the innocence or guilt of an accused.

Re:The problem with openness

[rdnetto]

One issue I see with this is that the average person is going to tune into a section of a criminal trial, hear the prosecution's side of things and tune out, having made up their mind that So-and-so is a criminal. Then they'll start talking about it among their friends, some of whom might blog or tweet about it, and before you know it the person is presumed guilty in the public eye. All that before the defense can cross-examine the first witness. When you're limited to being there in person, there's a barrier to entry that tends to weed out the casual gossiper whose only interest is the soap opera nature of a trial.

This is why in Sweden it is illegal to publish the name/identity of the accused until they are convicted. A similar law may be necessary in other countries as such tech becomes more common - a lot of existing laws that balance rights involving privacy assume a certain level of difficulty in accessing the information (e.g. going to the courthouse) that may no longer be the case.

Re:The problem with openness

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK we have a law preventing the release of the name of the accused if under 18, as well as "contempt of court" where someone publishes information that would make a fair trial impossible. Unfortunately the internet makes a mockery of them because people can post anonymously or from other countries.

The Swedish way seems like a good idea because currently the UK media will publish the name of anyone arrested for a crime, and that alone could preclude a fair trial. For example the jury is not told of previous convictions in most cases but once the name is out typing it into Google will bring up old news stories revealing them. Even if the media avoids re-printing them (which would be contempt of court) you can't remove information from the internet entirely, e.g. snippets of text in search engine results, blogs mentioning them or foreign media.

Couldn't they already tweet?

[hawguy]

...an operating Wi-Fi network serves citizen bloggers who want to post to the Internet. 'The idea is that people can live blog, but they can also tweet,'

Couldn't they already tweet using any cell phone purchased in the past 10 years or so? I thought the whole point of Twitter was that you can use SMS to send tweets. Why do they need this Wifi network to tweet?