Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stop the war and end the killings
Next Post: Reader comments closed until Tuesday
Posted in:
* The Law Bulletin’s Josh Weinhold got a rare interview with Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Kilbride. Weinhold asked Kilbride about the ongoing pilot project to put video cameras in courtrooms…
LB: What will you be looking for and paying attention to in the pilot program?
Kilbride: What we’re looking for is basically two things. One, that we obviously don’t have problems that disturb an orderly trial process. That’s the basic one. The other one is related — that not only is it not disruptive, but that the rights of the defendant to due process and to a fair trial in a criminal court room, that that’s always protected.
Those are the two things that we’re monitoring and I’m pleased to say that, thus far, based on the five circuits we’ve got, of the reports we’ve received from chief judges, there have been no problems reported.
[Hat tip: Riopell.]
* The Question: Do you support the idea of putting video cameras in Illinois courtrooms? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:14 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stop the war and end the killings
Next Post: Reader comments closed until Tuesday
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s not like the proceedings are taking place in private, nor should they. So many jurisdictions already allow the cameras in and there is no apparent harm to justice being done.
Comment by wishbone Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:18 pm
The harm comes in in high profile cases, where judges, lawyers, and witnesses are tempted to treat the camera as their shot at a reality TV pilot. JMHO.
Comment by Downstate weed chewing hick Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:26 pm
Agree with DWCH. The camera changes the dynamic too much. Cameras belong in appellate courts, but not in trial courts. They are mostly of interest in heater cases, and that’s where they are most dangerous.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:43 pm
Yes. More data are always better.
Comment by Dirt Digger Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:52 pm
Yes. I support accountability and transparency in the judicial system.
But that goal would be better served by Illinois courts abandoning their ad hoc & unpublishedRule 23 Orders.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:05 pm
We either need cameras or we need more court watcher groups.
Comment by yinn Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:09 pm
I don’t because cameras sometimes give celebrity status to judges, lawyers and the defendant.
I think this can affect the trial.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:15 pm
It could cause an overzealous prosecutor to shout out “A Rit Of Fealous Jage!”
You will always have the possibility of some clown acting to the camera but I think it can give a better insight to the truth, or lack thereof, by watching all parties up close and personal.
It will be great study material for seeking a mistrial.
Comment by Sunshine Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:17 pm
Re MrJM, Rule 23s have been posted on Court’s website for sometime now …. almost two years, I think. They are still not precedent…but pretty easy to follow now. Can even get Twitter alerts from the Court about Rule 23s
Comment by Joltin' Joe Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:21 pm
Best if the cameras are set up like security cameras, i.e. set in the walls or ceilings so the folks in courtroom do not see whether they are being taped to minimize mugging for the cameras.
Hundreds of council meetings are being recorded with no ill effects.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:40 pm
1) My link goes to the Rule 23 list.
2) Rule 23 orders are ad hoc. Justice is not.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:43 pm
Yes, the more transparency the better.
From my experience, the playing to the cameras argument is a strawman. I covered plenty of trials where no cameras were present that featured bad acting by attorneys. I covered bench trials that featured bad acting (not sure why).
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:48 pm
Yes. I favor transparency where ever practicable. Granted there is the danger to mugging for the cameras, but what is the jury but an audience and the only ones the lawyers have to convince.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:58 pm
Why not. The time has come to have cameras in the courts. The only people that should object will be
court room artists.
Comment by mokenavince Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:01 pm
No, there are extra costs associated with cameras that are not accounted for and must be absorbed by someone. Also, cameras are nothing but a distraction to those who are participating in the case, most importantly the jurors.
The only reason to televise cases is to generate viewership (i.e. ratings). The Courts need not be concerned with coverage / ratings but rather conducting a fair trial.
I call BS on those who call for transparancy in the Judicial Branch. 99% of these folks are looking to another souce for entertainment.
Comment by Stones Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:09 pm
Law school should change its name to acting school. Ego is it.
Comment by Trouble Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:12 pm
Cameras should be allowed, but will require judicial restraint against grandstanding. It might be a learning process, but the public availability will shine some necessary light on the courtroom process at the very least.
Comment by Captain Illini Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:19 pm
– 99% of these folks are looking to another souce for entertainment.–
Are you kidding? Trials in even sensational cases are deadly dull. You can spend days just doing nothing but chain-of-evidence.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:20 pm
I voted yes. I believe that any court proceeding open to the public should have a video camera running and be broadcasting to the nearest public access channels.
MrJM: Rule 23 orders generally are not precedent setting, and thus need not be cited, and therefor not subject to publication.
Comment by Cheswick Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 3:47 pm
Um, I got that wrong. Here’s the rule:
http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_I/arti.htm#Rule23
Comment by Cheswick Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 3:49 pm
I say yes but delay the release of the video by 30 days from the end of the trial. If people are still interested after the verdict is in, they can have at it. That will deter grandstanding for the cameras, at least somewhat I’d think.
Comment by thechampaignlife Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:11 pm