Balancing Justice and Transparency: The Debate on Cameras in Courtrooms

Abstract

Instructor’s Name Question #1 Describe the relationship between the police and the Media as Symbiotic. How does it work? The relationship between the police and the media is often controversial. These two organizations interact regularly, and their relationship is regarded as symbiotic. The media needs the police to supply them with information about crime and crime partners that heightens their image in the eyes of their viewers and listeners. The police want the media to improve their image in the community by publicizing crimes and wanted persons and crime patterns to seek approval from the community. However, the relationship is not productive because some information and atrocities done by the police can be susceptible. This can cause tension in the police since they are held answerable to the public and the free society. Police responsibilities include that which uses excessive force, seizure, arrest, and searches which can be very detrimental if they are not cautious. Do you think cameras should be allowed in court Rooms? Explain the pros and Cons. Allowing cameras in courtrooms has been controversial in the US justice system. Cameras should be allowed in courtrooms so that the public can see how justice is carried out. Pros In a democratic nation, people have a right to know how justice is carried out. Legal proceedings should be open to anyone to see to enhance transparency. Cameras in courtrooms promote faith and transparency. It enhances the people’s confidence in the judiciary. It inhibits denial and delay of justice. Scholars and lawmakers need to make viable policies and study various cases to draw inherent conclusions. It also serves educative purposes for law students. Better judgments are made in front of cameras. Judges are unwilling to risk their reputation and career on false and unsatisfactory judgments. Cons Cameras are a form of embarrassment, especially when embarrassing questions are asked involving secretive matters. The videos may go around on social media, tainting the images of the parties involved. It isn't easy to protect a person's identity when cameras are involved. Society believes that anyone dragged to the court has done something wrong. Cameras delay the enaction of judgment, especially when revisions of judgment are called when the judgments are deemed unfair. Open justice is a fundamental principle of an ideal legal system that demands public confidence (Cunliffe, 2012). Placing cameras in courtrooms disrupts the public right to firsthand information. The public is the custodian of free and fair trials, and the media should be allowed to record what takes place in the courtroom in person. Placing cameras in courtrooms intimidates justice and does not make sense. It makes sense for the cameras to be selective in their filming process on jury and witnesses, excluding others. The courts strive to open up the legal system to the public. However, the fully opening of the courts is sensitive and trivial and can create a form of media entertainment that is not pleasing. Filming of complete trials is absurd. The public should be allowed to view trials to understand court proceedings and satisfy judgment but not in the sense that it is undermining. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to decide whether to allow media coverage in courtrooms is absurd and irrational. It should be a pillar that enhances equality and justice is served equally...