PDA

View Full Version : Do You Believe in Televised Trials?


Talula
Sep 28th, 2011, 11:11 AM
They're not allowed in the UK, but I heard that might change.

Seeing the Michael Jackson trial on the news I am opposed to them. I think it leads to playing for the cameras and shifts the focus from facts and evidence to emotion. Plus evidence should be seen in its totality, not snippets such as the awful photo of MJ and that recording. The jury gets to see all the evidence but releasing the headline grabbing bits can distort opinion before all of it is known.

What do you think?

Sean.
Sep 28th, 2011, 11:25 AM
I meant to vote no but voted yet. :o

It's justice not reality tv!

Ashi
Sep 28th, 2011, 11:27 AM
No.

In India no trials are ever televised.

Beat
Sep 28th, 2011, 11:39 AM
no.

edificio
Sep 30th, 2011, 12:37 AM
Turns it into a spectacle.

Tripp
Sep 30th, 2011, 12:48 AM
We haven't had televised trials in Argentina for quite a few years now, they were banned. All written sentences are public, except for family matters and those involving underage individuals (though the names can be taken out and the sentences published).

So if you really care that much about a trial, you can read the sentence and the testimonials. No need to turn it into a reality show.

Londoner
Sep 30th, 2011, 04:59 PM
No. It becomes a spectacle, voyeurism and the lawyers play to the cameras and emotions.

OoohBarracuda
Sep 30th, 2011, 08:34 PM
I agree with others that said it becomes a spectacle. I voted sometimes but by that I mean that I don't mind them being filmed but not televised until the trial is over. When I watch documentaries, I find it interesting to see what happened in the trials; the evidence, the testimonies and the reactions to the verdict without it being affected by what's being said by the media. So I think it's okay to film the trials, just as long as they don't televise them when they're ongoing as to not distort any opinions as the OP said.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 1st, 2011, 02:01 PM
I worry about a couple of things

First of all there are the victims of crimes, especially rape, etc. What does this do to them. Its awful enough to go through that anyway, plus the investigation, the exam at the hospital, and then to be crucified on the stand on the trial. Hard enough to get a victim to testify as it is because of the trauma and humiliation. If it was to be televised, then no one would testify.
And, 2, there is innocent until proven guilty. Say someone is arrested on false charges and they are innocent? The televised trial would ruin someones reputaion and for what reason?

The bottom line is that we would be playing with real lives and foe what? Entertainment? I think not!

ico4498
Oct 1st, 2011, 02:47 PM
voted sometimes.

justice should be open and seen generally. kinda silly to keep the actual trial unseen meanwhile Nancy Grace et al foams on continuously on the salacious bits. ignorance of the law isn't excused so the information of the real trial details should prove instructive.

the obvious exceptions being child & rape cases.

Melly Flew Us
Oct 9th, 2011, 10:48 PM
They're not allowed in the UK, but I heard that might change.

Seeing the Michael Jackson trial on the news I am opposed to them. I think it leads to playing for the cameras and shifts the focus from facts and evidence to emotion. Plus evidence should be seen in its totality, not snippets such as the awful photo of MJ and that recording. The jury gets to see all the evidence but releasing the headline grabbing bits can distort opinion before all of it is known.

What do you think?
i voted yes because the jury are only allowed to form their opinions based on what happens in the court therefore media reporting is irrelevant to them; and the witnesses that are grand-standing and the lawyers that are hamming it up do so for the benefit of the jury tv camera or no.


televising a trial is important for those not on the jury. During the Michael Jackson trial from 2005 the media didn't just mis-report the trial proceedings they actually lied - leading people not on the jury to form an opinion that made them question the validity of the not guilty verdict.

even now during the conrad murry manslaughter trial from 2011 you have the rent-a-pundits completely disregarding what was said under oath and talking trash or telling lies.