Op-Ed: Controversy over Cameras in the Courtroom

On any given day, one can turn their television on and flip through numerous channels depicting real-life videos consisting of trauma, gore and violence, yet choosing to watch a controversial court case is still not up to John Q. Public.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a New Englander who served from 1983-1990, was once quoted as saying: “The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body.” It is good to see such a domineering attitude towards one’s profession, but when did courtrooms belong to the judges that sat in them, rather than the taxpayers? When did the Legislature add to their list of responsibilities what can and cannot be deemed newsworthy to the general public? Media involvement in contentious court cases is not a new fight. Following the trial of Bruno Hauptmann for the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby and the exaggerated media frenzy surrounding it in 1935, the use of cameras in the courtroom was severely restricted, in part due to the American Bar Association. Cases involving San Sheppard, Bill Sol Estes, O.J. Simpson and Kobe Bryant have all been battles won and lost by the media and the public. The three sides to this debate are the judicial side, the media, and of course, the public. It has been questioned for decades which takes precedence over another. The argument of the judicial side, more often than not from the judges themselves, is that publicly airing courtroom proceedings takes away the due process from the defendant, not allowing for a fair trial. The argument from the media and the public’s side is that the Sixth Amendment not only applies to the defendant, but to the public as well. Another argument is that the First Amendment also includes the public’s rights to the freedom of speech in both the written and spoken word. The public can also argue that they have a right to know the judicial proceedings of cases that could very well affect them, especially coming from the Supreme Court, not to mention the knowledge and understanding that could finally be gained from the perspective of the public regarding our judicial system. The judicial process will fail only if failure is allowed to happen. A perfect example of this would be the trial of O.J. Simpson. Judge Ito complained that the media was responsible for the lack of control in the courtroom, that if the cameras were not present, there would not have been a problem. Judge Ito had no control of his court because he did not control his own court. The cameras took away no powers of the judge, nor did they provide any obtuse angles. They simply told the truth of what was occurring in his court. Judge Ito is most embarrassed that this was displayed across national television; had the cameras not been there, the only ones who would have known he had no control over his courtroom were the occupants in it. He most opposes courtroom proceedings being televised because it paints a true picture of the judicial system and its flaws. Perhaps the public should be made aware of this, no matter whom it embarrasses. If a judge cannot keep control over their own court, then perhaps they should not be in the powerful position that they are in in the first place. The intent of our Founding Fathers was to have courtrooms completely open to the public, in front of as many people as possible. Criminal trials in early America were an elaborate display of publicity, not with televisions and cameras, but with nearly every townsfolk attending, perched in seats high above on the second floor, standing room only. It is highly doubtful that they envisioned technology to be what it is today, but withholding that, much of the public is still denied to this day the occurrences of the court. Tax dollars spent on the criminal justice system, from the buildings the courtrooms are housed in to the salaries, come from the American public. This is not to say that the public should be in charge of these courtrooms, but certainly the public should be allowed to see what is going on inside them. It would allow the public to see their legal system at its finest. It would open the minds of the public to understandings that could not come from a newspaper. The educational value alone is worth debating, since not that many people understand the criminal side of America. It might also help restore faith in our criminal justice system, something much needed in this country, due to the ignorance on the parts of many that simply do not understand it. Ignorance most certainly is not an illusion of knowledge. Moreover, if the general public understood the roles of attorneys on a higher note, perhaps there would not be so many bad lawyer jokes floating around. Common sense is obviously needed in this topic of debate. If it is a question of national security versus the public’s right to know, obviously there is no question about it – national security prevails all. Additionally, trials involving juveniles or cases involving witness protection should not be showcased for all to see. The First Amendment protects our rights to freedom of speech. The Sixth Amendment protects our rights to a speedy and public trial. The Fourteenth Amendment protects our rights of due process; nowhere in the Constitution does it spell out these rights as par for the course of the defendants only. They apply to every American citizen. As such, cameras in the courtrooms would not hinder the trial in any way other than showing America what really happens in judicial proceedings. Maybe then and only then would the outcries of many resulting from a controversial decision such as the case involving Rodney King be reduced when the public realizes that their perception of justice is completely different from the definition of justice inside a courtroom. The judiciary needs to take a large leap of faith into the 21st century. Cameras in courts of law will not interfere in judicial proceedings. With a few discretionary understandings, such as discreetly placed cameras, protection of those that deserve to be protected, professional attorneys and judges as opposed to grand standers, and focusing on the judicial side of a case, not the entertainment value, cameras in the courtrooms could be a positive influence on the judiciary system, the media and the public. The judiciary could finally earn the respect that is much deserved from a mostly ignorant public, the media could fulfill their positions of informing the public, and the public could be aware of the legal concerns going on around them without having to rely on third-party information handed down from tabloids. Rather than the public assuming what went wrong in judicial proceedings, the public will see precisely what the jury saw before they made their decision. The rights of the accused should of course be upheld in every Constitutional way, but so should the rights of the public. Conceivably, the public could benefit a lot more from this than from watching Judge Judy. The former dean of the Annenberg School of Communications was quoted as saying, “The purpose of the court is not education or spectacle or public entertainment, but justice.” Indeed. Justice for all.