TV or not tv
Hot, raging, arguments about whether TV cameras should be allowed in courtrooms have been in effect since the O.J. Simpson trial. A numerous amount of people, including judges, have their own take on this subject. After petitions upon petitions and trials after trials, we as a country have come a long way from where we started. As of now all 50 states allow TV coverage in courts and 37 allow TV cameras in criminal proceedings. Now the humungous fight of convincing the federal courts to allow electronic coverage of high profile trials is before the valiant people who fight to get cameras into courtrooms. There are many pros and cons to allowing cameras into courtrooms, all of which will be explained in the near future.With all the technological advances that we have accomplished, it only makes sense to use what we have to our advantage. Putting TV cameras in courtrooms would utilize all the capabilities of the media to televise important trials from beginning to end to give the public the chance to watch something that is of importance to them. Courtrooms are limited to a 60-80-person capacity. Some people cannot make it to a trial; therefore, production of any trial will aid the public by giving them a firsthand opportun
Judges can ban cameras from their courtrooms at their own discretion as long as their reason is constitutional. Most judges now are opposed to allowing cameras in their courtrooms. Some say that it violates the defendants right to a fair trial; some would just prefer not to have any cameras in a high-profile trial. High-profile trials like those of O.J. Simpson, Timothy McVeigh, Matthew Shepard, Kobe Bryant, Scott Pederson, Zaccarius Moussaiou, and the most recent, Michael Jackson. These are all examples of high-profile cases that judges do not like having cameras at; these are the trials that the public is most interested in and yet they cannot see the actual trial for themselves. It would be a huge aid to have cameras taping the proceedings to show to the American public LIVE; people should not have to rely on reporters and so called “experts” to tell them their own biased opinion about the trial. It is awfully hard to obtain a fair trial with all the media running around. Cameras and microphones may intimidate the jurors and the witnesses; some people cannot handle the criticism that the public gives out. Cameras could potentially put witnesses in danger. The 1st amendment does not include the right to televise, broadcast, or record a criminal trial, and Rule 53 bans photographers and radio broadcasting. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty, but by broa
Some topics in this essay:
Lance Ito,
Putting TV,
OJ Simpson,
Michael Jackson,
,
cameras courtrooms,
Zaccarius Moussaiou,
oj simpson,
judicial system,
tv cameras,
Court TV,
allowing cameras courtrooms,
american public,
jurors cameras,
biased opinion,
appeal judges,
allowing cameras,
witnesses jurors,
oj simpson trial,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 936
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
More Essays on TV or not tv Professional Papers: |
CUSTOMER SERVICES
|
|
Saved Papers
You haven't saved any papers.
|