I don’t think I need it televised. I’ll certainly get used to it but it’s not something that has ever bothered me. It’s going to become reality TV isn’t it
Just the sentencing:
> Broadcasting of entire trials will remain off limits, unlike in the US and some other nations.
Which is fair. It wouldn’t be right to film and broadcast the entire proceedings of somebody who then ends up being found not guilty.
That’s Judge Rinder done for
Every day, a new addition to my dystopian nightmare.
Makes sense really there is a big disconnect when reading convictions with a court sketch compared to seeing it with your own eyes
More distractions for the public to look at while they get there’s done.
I’m actually not a fan of this in the age of social media for high profile cases. Idiot members of the public will decide whether a sentence is too harsh/lenient and subsequently think it’s ok to abuse judges.
I actually agree with court cases going live, simply to prevent injustice. The UK courts are more biased and corrupt than people like to think
I would rather they didn’t do this. People are innocent until proven otherwise so why film a potentially innocent person which would damage their reputation forever.
Wasn’t long ago people where complaining we couldn’t get cameras in courts. “Secret courts” I believe they got dubbed.
Keep it to low level crimes and low profile cases too. Letting the public be judge, jury and executioner is only going to go badly as amateur Miss Marples think they know the true verdict and disagree with the verdicts reached by juries.
I really don’t like this, I personally feel like it sets a bad precedent for the future of our legal system.
Maybe I’m being too worried. But the US has such a fetishistic attitude towards enacting “justice” in the courts and the courts have been turned into a form of entertainment.
U.S.A., repeat, repeat, etc.
Difficult to feel this isn’t the start of a slippery slope which will end with the defendants being televised and playing up to the cameras. Justice needs to be seen to be done, but in the age of sensationalist media, will justice be done.
Another step in Britain’s Americanization.
I’m probably overthinking this, or at least I hope I am, but is this not a step towards just having show courts?
I’m neutral to the concept of broadcasting this stuff, since there is potentially a public interest and it could help public understanding of what happens in the lagal system.
But what gets me is that it’s going to be TV Crew(s) in court. Why can’t this just be filmed by the courts, released as public domain with legal restrictions against editing & use for entertainment purposes (like parliament, basically).
If the newsmedia wasn’t so incredibly manipulative then I’d say that this would t be a great idea. But the newsmedia absolutely cherrypicks things from trials in order to spin a story even if it’s actually the complete opposite of what’s going on. The Depp vs Heard trial in the US was a prime example of this. Anyone actually watching it could see how low the news media was stooping in order to try and manipulate public opinion.
As a result I’m all in favour of this. The more unedited information the public has easy access to the better. Take power of information away from the media and put it in the public’s hands where it belongs.
Wow, so many comments here from people who didn’t even bother to read the article 🙄
To clarify for those people, this change only allows for filming the sentencing of convicted criminals, not the trial itself, and only allows filming of the judge, and nobody else.
The idea is to help combat misinformation, as currently the public gets all its information about sentencing second hand from journalists, which leads to a lot of misinformation and poor understanding of why certain people get the sentences they receive.
Personally, I don’t really see any reason to be against this. Great clarity and better quality of information seems like a universally good thing…
19 comments
I don’t think I need it televised. I’ll certainly get used to it but it’s not something that has ever bothered me. It’s going to become reality TV isn’t it
Just the sentencing:
> Broadcasting of entire trials will remain off limits, unlike in the US and some other nations.
Which is fair. It wouldn’t be right to film and broadcast the entire proceedings of somebody who then ends up being found not guilty.
That’s Judge Rinder done for
Every day, a new addition to my dystopian nightmare.
Makes sense really there is a big disconnect when reading convictions with a court sketch compared to seeing it with your own eyes
More distractions for the public to look at while they get there’s done.
I’m actually not a fan of this in the age of social media for high profile cases. Idiot members of the public will decide whether a sentence is too harsh/lenient and subsequently think it’s ok to abuse judges.
I actually agree with court cases going live, simply to prevent injustice. The UK courts are more biased and corrupt than people like to think
I would rather they didn’t do this. People are innocent until proven otherwise so why film a potentially innocent person which would damage their reputation forever.
Wasn’t long ago people where complaining we couldn’t get cameras in courts. “Secret courts” I believe they got dubbed.
Keep it to low level crimes and low profile cases too. Letting the public be judge, jury and executioner is only going to go badly as amateur Miss Marples think they know the true verdict and disagree with the verdicts reached by juries.
I really don’t like this, I personally feel like it sets a bad precedent for the future of our legal system.
Maybe I’m being too worried. But the US has such a fetishistic attitude towards enacting “justice” in the courts and the courts have been turned into a form of entertainment.
U.S.A., repeat, repeat, etc.
Difficult to feel this isn’t the start of a slippery slope which will end with the defendants being televised and playing up to the cameras. Justice needs to be seen to be done, but in the age of sensationalist media, will justice be done.
Another step in Britain’s Americanization.
I’m probably overthinking this, or at least I hope I am, but is this not a step towards just having show courts?
I’m neutral to the concept of broadcasting this stuff, since there is potentially a public interest and it could help public understanding of what happens in the lagal system.
But what gets me is that it’s going to be TV Crew(s) in court. Why can’t this just be filmed by the courts, released as public domain with legal restrictions against editing & use for entertainment purposes (like parliament, basically).
If the newsmedia wasn’t so incredibly manipulative then I’d say that this would t be a great idea. But the newsmedia absolutely cherrypicks things from trials in order to spin a story even if it’s actually the complete opposite of what’s going on. The Depp vs Heard trial in the US was a prime example of this. Anyone actually watching it could see how low the news media was stooping in order to try and manipulate public opinion.
As a result I’m all in favour of this. The more unedited information the public has easy access to the better. Take power of information away from the media and put it in the public’s hands where it belongs.
Wow, so many comments here from people who didn’t even bother to read the article 🙄
To clarify for those people, this change only allows for filming the sentencing of convicted criminals, not the trial itself, and only allows filming of the judge, and nobody else.
The idea is to help combat misinformation, as currently the public gets all its information about sentencing second hand from journalists, which leads to a lot of misinformation and poor understanding of why certain people get the sentences they receive.
Personally, I don’t really see any reason to be against this. Great clarity and better quality of information seems like a universally good thing…