Guest Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 This leaves me cold. Is it really about open justice? After all, the courts are open to members of the public. Or is it cowing to the popular media, allowing them to report on those already in the public eye, or furthering sensationalistic stories on whatever area of crime they feel should be in the spotlight? On the other hand, would seeing the reasoning behind sentences give you greater confidence in the system? Or would it confirm that the law is an ass?
Rincewind Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Few people really know or understand how the courts and justice system works. They just see the outcome of cases as reported by the media and form their opinions from that. I must admit I have never seen a criminal case being held. I was up before a judge the other week but it was only a tribunal. No gowns or frocks or dodgy wigs being worn. There was someone sitting in, high sherrif I think but he wasn't involved just observing. not looked at that link yet so my reply may be considered worthless.
davieG Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 This leaves me cold. Is it really about open justice? After all, the courts are open to members of the public. Or is it cowing to the popular media, allowing them to report on those already in the public eye, or furthering sensationalistic stories on whatever area of crime they feel should be in the spotlight? On the other hand, would seeing the reasoning behind sentences give you greater confidence in the system? Or would it confirm that the law is an ass? Whatever the rights and wrongs this is the thin edge of the wedge that will open the doors and eventually lead to Sun/NOW/ANOther Celebrity mag type television because sadly that's what a large proportion of the public seem to want. It's like a throwback to the Gladiatorial Games and public hangings. If people really need to understand the justice system more let's see television companies broadcasting programmes that explain it but I guess the viewing figures would be on a par with the 300th showing of Dale's Supermarket Sweep.
davieG Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Time to recycle this article... The emphasis will naturally be on sex and murder with little mention of the 'big financial' crimes as the general public will be deemed to be thick too understand them or not interested unless it's a 'celebrity' involved.
Rincewind Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 I tried to add to my post. Lost connection. Read it and I agree somewhat. There will still be few people that understand what went on during the bits they do not show and say the judge was wrong. Will the cameras influence the judge? He has his image to uphold. The Sun readers will not be tuning too much I would think.. I have a sort of interest in the law but would probably find it a little boring.
davieG Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 I think they should hold trials in bigger venues, charge entrance fees and get some audience participation then it will be really worth televising. Just imagine hearing this as the sentence is announced. Who's the bastard in the black! You're not fit to judge a crime!
Leicfox Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 What is the point of this? Is it for the public to become aware of how the courts and justice system works? Is it to try and scare people to try and prevent crime? To try and increase confidence in the justice system? If you were interested and involved in one particular case that badly surely you'd go and sit in the gallery or be part of the trial. It's nobody else's business otherwise in my opinion and could it not lead to witness and jury intimidation? I don't really know how the system works but then again I don't plan on getting into trouble or being a lawyer.
Captain... Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Actual video footage of trials could be useful in allowing people to make up there own minds about cases rather than having to rely on the opinions of journalists and sensationalist headlines. I imagine the footage would be used on the news and on news websites and I see no problem with that. My concern would be about anonimity and protecting the identity of minors and victims and those wrongly accused, but I am assuming all of that will be covered in the new legislation, another concern would be that victims of crimes such as rape and domestic violence may not want to report it in case it got to trial and their suffering was broadcast live. I hope there are some caveats and clauses in there that protect the rights of the victims and the innocent, but in prinicple I have no problem with it.
Parafox Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Why only broadcast the summing up and points for the jury to consider? That's a bit meaningless as, in order to make sense of a sentence, or judgement surely the viewer needs to see what has led up to the judges summing up? What they should do is broadcast the whole trial and allow the TV viewers to decide guilt or innocence. If guilty, press the red button on the remote control, which would be linked to a trapdoor in the dock and the guilty individuals could plummet back down to the cells
Leicfox Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 What they should do is broadcast the whole trial and allow the TV viewers to decide guilt or innocence. If guilty, press the red button on the remote control, which would be linked to a trapdoor in the dock and the guilty individuals could plummet back down to the cells Now that would be fun.
davieG Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Actual video footage of trials could be useful in allowing people to make up there own minds about cases rather than having to rely on the opinions of journalists and sensationalist headlines. I imagine the footage would be used on the news and on news websites and I see no problem with that. My concern would be about anonimity and protecting the identity of minors and victims and those wrongly accused, but I am assuming all of that will be covered in the new legislation, another concern would be that victims of crimes such as rape and domestic violence may not want to report it in case it got to trial and their suffering was broadcast live. I hope there are some caveats and clauses in there that protect the rights of the victims and the innocent, but in prinicple I have no problem with it. Surely seeing snapshots of cases on the news isn't going to give you sufficient information to form a valid opinion anymore than via journalists.
davieG Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Why only broadcast the summing up and points for the jury to consider? That's a bit meaningless as, in order to make sense of a sentence, or judgement surely the viewer needs to see what has led up to the judges summing up? What they should do is broadcast the whole trial and allow the TV viewers to decide guilt or innocence. If guilty, press the red button on the remote control, which would be linked to a trapdoor in the dock and the guilty individuals could plummet back down to the cells Who would have the time to sit through a whole trial? There should be more options as to where the trap door leads.
Parafox Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Who would have the time to sit through a whole trial? There should be more options as to where the trap door leads. The same people that have the time to watch Jeremy Kyle, I shouild imagine. Assuming they're not in the dock themselves. I did try to think of other places for the trapdoor to lead to. Hades? A cesspool? Jobcentre Plus? All suggestions welcome.
Steven Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 What was wrong with "Crown Court". Surely that would be just as good? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Court_(TV_series)
Carl the Llama Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 We already know how this turns out: http://youtu.be/fMkrJOOTjj4 21:30 onwards
Captain... Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Surely seeing snapshots of cases on the news isn't going to give you sufficient information to form a valid opinion anymore than via journalists. But it will give you the opinion of the judge rather than the journalist's take and selective quoting of what the judge said. Obviously TV can edit it how they want but the video will be there and available for those that want to see it. If you take the "drunk" Somali Girls attacking the white girl incident, to have actually seen the judge summing up and passing judgement would have probably given a better overview of the case and an understanding of why they received the sentence they did than a Mail or Guardian article on it, and give subsequent debates more factual evidence.
Guest Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Being pedantic, there wouldn't have been a summing up in that case, as there was no trial
Webbo Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 I'm not in favour of this but, playing devil's advocate, if you could see the case for yourself and hear the judge's summing up then in cases like the recent "muslim girls let off for racist assault because they couldn't handle their drink" we could see for ourselves if that was the case or just tabloid spin. EDIT; Just noticed Cap Schrap said the same thing.
Daggers Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Who would have the time to sit through a whole trial? Legal students, politicians, estate agents and me. Not every trial, not all of every trial, but there can be no mistaking that the current perception of the law is that it is dysfuntional and not fit for purpose, and lawyers care more for the cheque than they do for the person they are representing or issues of right and wrong. To bend a familiar quote: "...a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" [R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233)]. To see justice being done and to have it explained from beginning to end would be a massive step forward in educating the public and turning a light onto those who are rarely held to account. Courts are open to the public - but so too are libraries and I've not heard that used as a reason to close down the internet or ban DVDs. Courts are not accessible without cost, petrol and parking fees...and are not open at a time when it is convenient for the working public to go. I am not in favour of highlights but of full coverage. It will provoke informed debate, educate society, inform legislation and, as they love saying when there's pitchforks waving and burning torches a-blazing: "If you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide"
General Smuts Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 I have to go to court next month as a witness. I don't give a shit about the case at all so am just gonna memorise the Jack Nicholson speech and recite it.
davieG Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 Legal students, politicians, estate agents and me. Not every trial, not all of every trial, but there can be no mistaking that the current perception of the law is that it is dysfuntional and not fit for purpose, and lawyers care more for the cheque than they do for the person they are representing or issues of right and wrong. To bend a familiar quote: "...a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" [R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233)]. To see justice being done and to have it explained from beginning to end would be a massive step forward in educating the public and turning a light onto those who are rarely held to account. Courts are open to the public - but so too are libraries and I've not heard that used as a reason to close down the internet or ban DVDs. Courts are not accessible without cost, petrol and parking fees...and are not open at a time when it is convenient for the working public to go. I am not in favour of highlights but of full coverage. It will provoke informed debate, educate society, inform legislation and, as they love saying when there's pitchforks waving and burning torches a-blazing: "If you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide" I'm not against in principle I just fear the Sky version Lisa posted, I feel it would need to be on a public funded community channel for me to be in favour even I might watch then. I have spent time observing a trial at a Leicester Court and at the Old Bailey and found it really interesting.
Daggers Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 I'm not against in principle I just fear the Sky version Lisa posted, I feel it would need to be on a public funded community channel for me to be in favour even I might watch then. Absolutely, just like the Parliamentary channel.
Guest Posted 28 March 2012 Posted 28 March 2012 With regards to Webbo's comment about the Muslim Girls Scandal, if anyone had gone and checked the Mockery version after reading the Daily Fail version, they would have read a fairer summary of the story. Daggers makes some valid points. Sadly, Joe Public doesn't want to know or understand the criminal justice system; it wants to point the finger of blame. I can't honestly see people agreeing with judges who have considered all of the facts, some of which are likely to be un-broadcastable, and fitted those into the Sentencing Guidelines. It's not an easy task, as there is 'no size fits all' sentence in the majority of situations. The news channels certainly don't want to educate, either. This has all stemmed from the MP expenses scandal, and the Sky Corporation not being able to film MPs squirming in the dock. Don't believe for one minute they want to televise proceedings for the benefit of the system and the people who live with it. No, they are jealously looking across at the US, and the high profile trials that have taken place around the same time. As for lawyers' pay, criminal lawyers aren't earning anywhere near their colleagues salaries in other areas of law.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.