Greg Fleming PSYC 508 3/14/14 Position Paper #1

When most individuals think of television in the courtroom, they think of Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, or even Judge Lopez. Although these TV shows do exist, the reality of it is actually becoming more common among every day trials. There are several pros and cons to having television present in the courtroom. The pros and cons could be the dynamic affect it has on the actual trial process. Having camera’s present, can actually enhance or degrade the trial process. Some individuals argue whether it is fair to the defendant or does it violate the defendants right to due process. Whether or not defendants agree to the thought of having a camera present during trial, it is not entirely up to them. Some individuals would argue that camera’s in the courtroom are beneficial to a case. There are many pros and cons with having camera’s in the courtroom. When cameras were first present in the courtroom, some audiences began to feel that it might interfere with the sincerity of the case. During the OJ Simpson trial was a prime example of this. Some individuals were unsure whether the attorneys were acting for the cameras or if they were simply elaborating so that the jury could receive and retain important components of the case. Others may argue that having a televised trial may actually encourage the credibility of the witnesses to be truthful. Research has shown that camera’s offer insight on the sincerity of a victim or defendant. This is said to be true because they are able to zoom in on the offenders face while the plaintiff is giving his or her testimony. They have also been proven helpful in the sense that they provide equality and clarity by sharing all findings with the public. One of the cons in having camera’s present during a trial is that it can paint a negative picture of the victim and his or her family. It is said that it can also prevent individuals from being honest during testimonies. It can also have the affect of making individuals nervous, which may lead them to fidget when asked specific questions. This in turn can lead the jury thinking that he or she is lying, which can lead to a guilty sentence. A trial is a balanced ruled meeting involving the individuals to courtroom disagreement in a communal examination of the truth. These trials consist of reliability, which acknowledges hard facts and substantial evidence. Some individuals fear that cameras can be the delivery system of hard facts to the public that in turn might sway the final ruling of the judge. Some may argue that having camera’s present during a trial may or may not be fair to the defendant. Cameras are not in place to make defendants vulnerable. Our Amendment rights of due process with camera’s present in the courtroom is simply to represent our lives with recorded audio. It is said that the accused stands more to blame when allowing cameras to be in the courtroom. Some may feel that critics and news analyzers may jeopardize a fair trial with visual judgment. Having cameras present can either go one way or another by being extremely beneficial or detrimental to a defendant’s process. Whether or not having cameras present during a trial is not entirely up to the defendant. It is a gray area for most whether or not the public has a fundamental right to view a trial proceeding. The First Amendment right has protected individuals rights to have access to attend trials. Therefor individuals will discover if one seeks justice, one can sit in on any one persons case. This is said to be true, unless the courtroom specifies that the courtroom be closed. Researchers have stated that some critics feel that the filming of the court case should be shown after the court case trial has come to an end. Although this may be true, many argue that there is no difference between sitting in on a court case and watching the filmed version over the television. I feel that having cameras present within the courtroom would actually degrade the process of the trial for several reasons. As I mentioned earlier, it could very well make those involved in the case nervous. Whether it be the jury, attorneys, or even the defendant. Putting individuals in an environment where they feel more nervous than vulnerable could lead to negative outcomes. Theses outcomes could be detrimental to the defendant if he and his lawyer are trying to win the case. If the defendant is not actually guilty of what he or she is being acquitted for. He or she may not end giving a valid testimony, due to the feeling of vulnerability. This in turn could lead he or she to being sentenced for a crime that did not take place. Trial cases should be enclosed and private during the process until it is over. By having multiple variables such as cameras and random strangers present is more likely to change the outcome. I believe in this, due to the fact everyone is tense to begin with during a case. By adding more tension can only make things more stressful for all parties involved. Whether the defendant is a criminal or not, every American has the right to his or her privacy.