Court Proceedings Should Not Be

¶ … Court Proceedings Should Not Be Televised

Certain court cases have gained serious momentum, notoriety and a popularity within popular culture. For example, in the mid 1990s, millions of Americans tuned in to watch the famous OJ Simpson Trial. That was an example of a criminal case which attracted a great deal of fanfare and public spectacle. The Casey Anthony trial was another example of this phenomenon: when a criminal case entered the public sphere of interest and fascination. Some people would argue that televising criminal cases is important as it can educate people on criminal trial proceedings and it can create more transparency within the legal system. However, this is simply not accurate or just. Court proceedings should absolutely not be televised because it turns the justice system into entertainment; this is a misuse of the justice system and undermines its integrity.

The first problem with broadcasting court proceedings over television is that it could undermine the quality of the work that is being done. As one expert claimed, "Criminal trials should not be televised because although we are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, there is nothing in the constitution saying the trials must be made public. Any of the participants in a trial which is being broadcast are aware they're being watched. Being aware you're being watched very well could alter the behaviour of those involved. Lawyers could be more concerned with celebrity, and so could judges. Televised trials can be turned into a free-for-all with people wanting to get attention, and it takes away from the purpose of the trial which is to find a person guilty or innocent" (debate.org, 2013). This is a truly compelling point. One can only wonder if attorneys and judges can work to the best of their abilities while under the intense scrutiny of the media and of the general public. Furthermore, the media has been known to slant certain criminal trials in particular directions. For example, the Casey Anthony trial of just a few years ago, some argue, was slanted in such a manner that the entire nation thought she was guilty. The jury, however, found her not guilty. Given the portrayal of this woman in the media, an entire nation thought that justice had not been served. Jurors were ridiculed and even threatened. An entire uproar had occurred. By allowing court proceedings to be covered by the media, there's a lack of authenticity which is surrendered for recording everything on television.

Furthermore, allowing court proceedings to be televised cheapens the process of justice, by making it a form of entertainment for the masses. This is simply unacceptable. It negates the entire reason that the judicial process was created: the judicial system was developed in order to employ a level rightness to the wrongs that had been committed against individuals. Moreover, some witnesses might require complete anonymity, or privacy. Televising court proceedings puts these jurors in danger of mooning for the cameras or from being authentic while on the witness stand. The jurors may also desire anonymity, as in the case of the Casey Anthony trial, when such a high-profile defendant was found not guilty.