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.

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.