America's top courts may have to prove how truly dull they are by law Four members of the US Congress will unveil a law bill on Thursday that would ensure hearings in the nation's highest courts are streamed online. Dubbed the Eyes on the Courts Act [PDF], the bill asks that both the US Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of Appeal allow their proceedings to be recorded and shown online. The bill …
I'm a bit ambivalent about this.
I think that people should see what is happening and be aware of what real court proceedings look like. If you are involved, it can be a bit overwhelming and this would be a way to try and show the general public how things are really done, to reduce the tension that can be a part of it.
However, having sat in a number of courts, I know that sometimes, the proceedings are truly dishwater dull for those that don't have a specific stake in the discussions or outcome. Seriously, the weather channel can be more entertaining at times.
What would worry me is that some members of the legal profession might try to play up to the cameras and then the court system might actually lose some credibility.
"some members of the legal profession might try to play up to the cameras"
Surely they're already playing up to the jurors and/or judges?
I think it's a splendid idea. Democracy is founded on openness and transparency. I don't think many people watch the parliament channel wherever it's available either, and probably also mostly dull as dishwater. But anyone who wants to follow the proceedings should be able to
Would you want to be a witness being interrogated by a hostile lawyer, and knowing that possibly thousands of people are getting their kicks watching you?
Would you want to be a defendant subjected to such a hostile interrogation, knowing that many of the people watching will not bother to watch the defence case and so will assume you are proven guilty even if you are found innocent?
Trial by newspaper is bad enough, but there will now be trial by social media with none of the minimal constraints that the newspapers have. Everyone chipping in with their pet theories, with no regard for legal process. Remember that bloke that got falsely accused of the Boston bombing because lots of amateur detectives analysed the videos?
Good enough for Oscar, why not anyone else?
After all, unless its a closed court anyone can just rock up and watch, what really is the difference to having it streamed?
Even better is if the streams are passed into an av indexing service, so you can query for phrases, topics, charges, players etc and watch the relevant cases.
"Would you want to be a witness being interrogated by a hostile lawyer, and knowing that possibly thousands of people are getting their kicks watching you?"
Having been a witness many times I agree with your sentiment. However, according to the article this only applies to the courts of appeal and supreme court. If these are anything like their UK equivalents they deal with points of law. The witness evidence has been taken in the lower courts. And if these hearings involve the likes of Prenda law they should be way more entertaining than the those lower courts.
Or Rightscorp?
Where's the line drawn? If the courtroom has a public gallery, then there is no reason that the proceedings that aren't closed can't be streamed to everyone. Of course, I'd suggest the same for U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Sentate, including committees' hearings be broadcast as well.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
