1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Monday, 29 October 2012
Personal Evaluation
Think
back to a case that has affected you in some way or something even as recent as
looking in your weekly paper and ask yourself the following questions:
1.
Is media in the courtroom a good or bad idea?
2.
What are the pros and cons of having cameras in
courtrooms?
3.
If you were a judge in the Supreme Court of
Canada, would you want your proceedings posted online for the entire public to
view?
4.
Does this jeopardize the security and likeability
of lawyers and judges in the legal system?
The only way to really decide is
to look at every individual case as special because not all cases will be the
same.
Below is a link to the Casey Anthony Case. This was a case that was very emotional for many people. Some pictures and video clips were released to the public. Weigh out the pros and cons and tell me… what do you
think?
Pros and Cons of Cameras in the Courtroom
Pros and Cons
Of course in any situation or debate there are pros and cons to both sides of the story. This is why it may be difficult for some people to ultimatly say yes or no to cameras being allowed into the courtroom.At first I was on the fence like many people, but I thought about the Standard of Proof: Balance of Probabilities and realized that each specific case and situation must be analyzed and weighed just like evidence in civil trials. In order to say which party has the Balance of Probabilities the judge must weigh each piece of evidence. I feel that in order to decide if certain cases should be viewed by the public we as the public should weigh the pros and cons of the trial itself and what the reaction to the film would be.
Here is a link to a video on the ktla news website regarding a city in the U.S and the judges of the supreme court not wanting their proceedings to be viewed by the public. The video also discusses why it is so important to some people that video cameras be allowed in court.
KTLA News: Pros and Cons video
O.J Simpson Murder Trial 1995
O.J Simpson
was a popular retired football player who was accused of murdering his ex-wife
Nicole Simpson Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1995. The case was a worldwide
sensation, not only for his behaviour, especially known for his car chase in
his white Ford Bronco on the highway and putting on a black glove that was found
at the crime scene that was being used against him, but also for his celebrity.
The case tugged at a lot of people’s
emotions as many people felt he was given the wrong verdict. In the 1995 case
the jury found him not guilty in both counts of the murders of Nicole Simpson
Brown and Ronald Goldman.
O.J’s
celebrity and money is what made his case one of the most talked about cases of
all time, in my opinion. This case was one of the reasons why I was unsure of
how I felt about cameras being in the courtroom. Even though this is not a
Canadian Case, it does still affect Canadians because our judicial system is very
similar, and Americans are our next door neighbours. I felt as though the video broadcasting of the
trial took the focus away from the victims, and it became all about O.J.
However, I am also glad that the trial is viewable because it shows that you cannot
always take someone else’s word, and you must witness things yourself to make a
formal decision of what your opinion is.
Below
are two small clips from the trial. The first is the infamous “If the glove doesn’t
fit, you must aquit” speech delivered by one of O.J’s lawyers Johnny Cochran. The second video
is the verdict being delivered. It is emotional as you can hear the family
members of Ronald Goldman bursting into tears.
Watch the clips and you decide if the cameras in court had
an effect on the way the trial was received by the public.
History of Cameras in the Courtroom
For its part, the Canadian Judicial Council has pronounced itself
opposed to cameras in court, having voted on the issue in 1983, 1988, and 1995.
Its current position is expressed as a “recommendation” only. (The Canadian
Encyclopedia, Cameras in the Court, n.d)
In Canadian history there are
four major cases that were allowed to be filmed at trial. The first was the
1981 Patriation Reference case. Since then beginning in March of 1993 three other
cases were allowed to be filmed and broadcasted. (The Canadian Encyclopedia, Cameras in the
Court, n.d)
1.
The tax deductibility of nanny expenses to a professional
case
2.
The right to assisted suicide case
3.
The tax deductibility of spousal support payment
case
After the courts experimented
with filming the above cases the courts have allowed most proceedings to be
broadcasted by the CPAC- Cable Public Affairs Chanel, these webcasts can be
found on the Supreme Courts website. The farthest back that can go to view
these webcasts is winter 2009. (CBC News 2010)
In the
1990`s the Federal Court of Appeal and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal also did
experiments regarding filming proceedings, although these were not permanent decisions
both Courts of Appeal had filmed a few cases. Ontario is the only province to pass
a law that bans the use of cameras and filming crews in the court room,
although sometimes they do makes exceptions for important cases. For example
the Stephen Truscott case. (CBC News 2010)
Ask yourself the following
questions regarding Cameras in court rooms and the broadcasting of the
proceedings:
1.
Does the presence of cameras in court affect the
outcome of the trial?
2.
Why do you think Ontario is the only province to
have a ban on cameras in court?
3.
If you were a licensed paralegal would you
prefer to be filmed or not to be filmed?
In addition to links to the three numbered cases above, there are also links below to the Income Tax Act, and the Criminal Code, because they are referenced in the three cases that were discussed.
Introduction: Media and the Courts
Media and the courts, good or bad idea?
When I first asked myself this
question I did not have a straight answer. For there is a part of me that would
say yes television cameras should be allowed to film during trials that would
have a profound impact on the country and the community. However, there was
also the thought in the back of my mind that made me fear what would come of
it.
Today our generation is filled
with technology and on any given day we could look around at our peers and see
the affect this has had on all of us in some way or another. It does not matter
where we are anymore, with Wi-Fi hotspots all over town and in our favourite coffee
shops; everything is disposable to us at our fingertips. I wondered if being able
to view on our cellphones, TVs, and tablet a trial about a murder, or a sexual assault
case would have a bad or normal effect on us. Then I thought who is to say what
is normal or not normal?
I then began to think about the
law aspect of this all. There is private law which outlines the rights and responsibilities
of private individuals and organizations. Then there is public law that
controls the relationship between the government and the people. This represents
laws that apply to all individuals. I then concluded that people have a wright
to know what is going on around them, and special information comes out in
evidence in court that for some people may be helpful for whatever reason.
Of course private law really has
no effect on the public. What happens between two individuals or an individual
and an organization is personal. When someone commits a criminal offence it
affects a lot more than just the community surrounding the incident. This is
why I decided that yes depending on the case and the evidence brought forward,
people should have partial if not full disclosure of what criminals are doing
in our communities and our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)