With witnesses done in the federal trial over Proposition 8, Chief
Judge Vaughn Walker will now retire to his chambers and sort through
the evidence -- aided by a complete video recording of the proceedings.
Might those tapes get a public airing?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202439569329&Proposition__Trial_Wraps_but_Will_It_Find_a_Wider_Audience
As if Proposition 8 isn't controversial enough, California's Northern District court hopes to amend a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the filming and broadcasting of court proceedings in the Proposition 8 case. While footage following the high court's decision was prohibited, "Yes on 8" supporters hope to upload existing footage to popular websites such as YouTube for public viewing.
According to the article link above, some of the intellectual volleys described seem to be worth waiting for, and the public may get a chance to see them in action. Objection your honor! I've wanted to say that just about as long as I've wanted to say "Stop the presses!".
While we have all watched courtroom footage (my first was the OJ Simpson trial), what are the implications of making courtroom proceedings available to the public? As online video accessibility reaches more of the nation every day, doesn't it make sense to make at least some of this public process available? Wouldn't this option improve transparency within the justice system, and provide more data for experts to analyze?
Though I am not a citizen of California, Iowa has a similar law that will inevitably come under scrutiny, and access to the details of the trial on Prop 8 would likely serve both sides very well.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202439569329&Proposition__Trial_Wraps_but_Will_It_Find_a_Wider_Audience
As if Proposition 8 isn't controversial enough, California's Northern District court hopes to amend a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the filming and broadcasting of court proceedings in the Proposition 8 case. While footage following the high court's decision was prohibited, "Yes on 8" supporters hope to upload existing footage to popular websites such as YouTube for public viewing.
According to the article link above, some of the intellectual volleys described seem to be worth waiting for, and the public may get a chance to see them in action. Objection your honor! I've wanted to say that just about as long as I've wanted to say "Stop the presses!".
While we have all watched courtroom footage (my first was the OJ Simpson trial), what are the implications of making courtroom proceedings available to the public? As online video accessibility reaches more of the nation every day, doesn't it make sense to make at least some of this public process available? Wouldn't this option improve transparency within the justice system, and provide more data for experts to analyze?
Though I am not a citizen of California, Iowa has a similar law that will inevitably come under scrutiny, and access to the details of the trial on Prop 8 would likely serve both sides very well.
By and large I agree with everything on this post. And with important court-room decisions in particular on controversial topics that will have a massive and widespread impact transperancy is an important thing. Especially given that Prop 8 is largely a bill regarding widespread bigotry and ignorance.
However, I'd like to play devils advocate for a bit. Although transperancy ensures that we see when mistakes are made, or see an ideal process when things go right, is there a risk that this transperancy will cause damage to the system as a whole?
An example is the ongoing debate in football about digital recordings of every play which can see things down to the bird droppings on the 50 yard line. Some say this helps make sure plays are ruled on fairly, others say it takes all power away from the ref's.
Might courtroom camera's do the same thing? Yes when gross errors are made we can catch the guy and fire him. But overall do we risk making "public acceptance" the new norm for all courtroom decisions? In football the touchdown was good, or it wasn't, the foot was on the line, or it wasn't. So digital recordings are almost universally objective in this regard.
Judges are trained extensively in order to rule on issues such as this, inevitably their decision making will change if they know everything is televised and open to the public. It remains to be seen whether or not all these changes would be positive, or to document the net change between both positive and negative changes. I can see some judges with political aspirations fearing that their commentary will be public and thus siding with their future constituency even though they believe differently. A pro gay-marriage judge may actually vote to ban gay marriage publicly b/c he knows he will not become senator without that base; or it could be vice versa. Sadly often transperancy turns things into a political game and the original intent of the enterprise (say judging fairly based on analsis of facts) is lost.