Federal Courts To Begin First Digital Video Pilot

coondoggie writes "Federal district courts have been prohibited from allowing any sort of electronic dissemination of trials since 1946, but that is about to change. Fourteen federal trial courts and 100 judges have been selected to take part in the federal Judiciary's three-year digital video pilot, which will begin July 18 and will go a long way towards determining the effect of cameras in courtrooms."

Comments

Cameras make sense in some cases

[torgis]

I'm not a fan of becoming a surveillance society, but cameras in certain instances definitely make sense. I want cameras in the courtroom, police waiting rooms, and mounted on every police car during traffic stops. If my freedom may some day depend on my word against that of a police officer, I'd prefer to have hard video evidence just in case. Just look at all of the cases where you see cops acting with impunity because they didn't know they were being filmed, and then watch their reactions once they know someone busted them.

Re:Cameras make sense in some cases

[oh-dark-thirty]

Public employees' work should be transparent to the people that pay their salaries, period. It is ironic how the police and law enforcement in general want cameras on all of us, but shine the spotlight on them and they cry foul.

   

Re:Cameras make sense in some cases

[torgis]

Let me clarify a little bit too - I don't mean all this crap should become a TV media circus. But it should be filmed for posterity's sake and archived, available with a Freedom of Information request.

Re:Cameras make sense in some cases

[geekmux]

I'm not a fan of becoming a surveillance society, but cameras in certain instances definitely make sense. I want cameras in the courtroom, police waiting rooms, and mounted on every police car during traffic stops. If my freedom may some day depend on my word against that of a police officer, I'd prefer to have hard video evidence just in case. Just look at all of the cases where you see cops acting with impunity because they didn't know they were being filmed, and then watch their reactions once they know someone busted them.

While I do wholeheartedly agree with you in regards of being able to defend yourself with hard evidence, I don't know yet if there is enough value in exchanging my right to privacy(allow cameras in certain areas, whats to stop them from putting them everywhere), only to find that the cop who was "busted" on video receives nothing more than a slap on the wrist. You managed to point out only half of the real issue here with people being caught on film. If those caught on film are still not punished appropriately, then I see no point in me giving up my right to privacy.

Re:Cameras make sense in some cases

[hedwards]

I disagree, cameras only make sense for things like Law enforcement, it's complete bullshit to make somebody take a pay cut to work in the public sector and then force them to give up all their privacy as well. There's no reason why we need cameras in most of those cases when an independent auditor can already ensure adequate transparency in a way that the public watching can't.

Plus, you're not their boss. I know that people are going to disagree, but you're not. When you can hire and fire them and call the shots, then you can be the boss. But watching a few minutes or even hours of somebody working is hardly qualification for making an assessment of their job quality. Ultimately all you do is make the ones that are legitimately slacking off find more innovative ways of hiding it. If they were a waste of salary to begin with, I doubt very much that they're going to allow themselves to be found out just because you want cameras.

Law enforcement is very different since most of that stuff is done in public and they're frequently subpoenaed. Having that evidence is ultimately good for everybody involved as it makes things more certain.

the effect of cameras in courtrooms

[Aladrin]

"the effect of cameras in courtrooms" ... That's something that seems pretty simple, until you start think about it.

Look at the OJ trial. If that hadn't been covered by the media, would it have been such a circus? Would the same result have happened? We don't know, but it's quite possible things would be quite different. For one thing, those lawyers suddenly knew their careers could be made or broken on that case, and that's going to change their strategy. The whole glove-trying thing was supposed to be a huge visual shocker (and it was!) and turned out horribly wrong for the prosecutor. If there had been no cameras, would he have still done it?

The jurors also knew their every in-court action would be up for public scrutiny, not the least of which was the final verdict. It's nearly impossible to determine how that affected each of them.

If you haven't guessed already, I don't think trials should be publicized until they are over. The media shouldn't get to cover the trial while in progress. It's not entertainment, it's justice. And it's being warped.

Re:the effect of cameras in courtrooms

[causality]

If you haven't guessed already, I don't think trials should be publicized until they are over. The media shouldn't get to cover the trial while in progress. It's not entertainment, it's justice.

No kidding. I feel that way every time there's some long drawn-out event that gets minute-by-minute play-by-play coverage for weeks.

I never liked the idea of hearing about each miniscule development each day for days or weeks. I'd much rather they wait until a trial or election or what-have-you is over, and then tell me what the result was, once. Not dozens of times. Few events warrant that kind of attention, and among those which do, the whole "media circus" phenomenon makes a mockery of them.

Totally against this

[GodfatherofSoul]

People who really care are happy with transcripts. Cameras turn lawyers and judges into showboaters and definitely influences the process. A judge who previously would have happily accepted that he was in the wrong and sided with an attorney on minor issues now will worry about his image (especially in the era of electable judges), puff out his chest, and push back.

And, what of the cases of the "indefensible"; pedophiles, terrorists, rapists, etal.? How much more likely is a judge willing to reject an argument in their favor for fear of looking like he's an appeaser?

Lack of cameras is a natural barrier for the carnival barkers and curiosity seekers looking for nothing more than another reality TV outlet.

Re:Totally against this

[afidel]

Federal judges aren't elected....

Bad idea

[cpu6502]

(1) Adding video to Congress has not made anything more "transparent". Now the elected servants just hide in their offices to shaft the populace, and they use the floor to do pointless campaign speeches (posturing).

(2) A judge's duty is to the law, even if that displeases the general population. Having a camera means he too will be giving speeches to get re-elected, instead of following the letter of the law.