Vincent Browne Heckle !

[musashi]

There is no good reason for them not to be televised so that they will be open to more of the public.

1+
The greater number of citizens that can experience 'justice seen to be done' the better for democracy.

[Baron von Biffo]

People living in Letterkenny cannot be making daily trips to attend trials.

Not everyone has a television, people in the Gaeltacht will say their rights are not served if the trial is in English, The deaf will say they can't follow trials that aren't signed, people in hospital wont be able to watch, shift workers won't be home when trials are broadcast.

It's neither possible or necessary to allow everyone in the country to see every trial.

The public would be better served were the courts televised. It is foolish to suggest that everyone interested in a trial can make it to the courts.

The public is served best if justice is done in the courts and there's no grounds for believing that TV cameras will further that end.

I would have to look that up. I cannot cite the article which refers to trials and how they should be conducted.

I misread this question.
The point is that trials would be more public and therefore in the spirit of the Constitution when cameras will be used.

The courts are covered by articles 34 - 37. Art. 34.1 says:-

"Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public."

You'll note that the first word is 'Justice'. If televising trials would interfere with justice then it shouldn't happen. I think that turning trials into entertainment would lessen the prospect of justice being served so I'm against the idea.

[Holly]

Not everyone has a television, people in the Gaeltacht will say their rights are not served if the trial is in English,

Most people have a TV and where trials are televised they could have simultaneous translations.

The deaf will say they can't follow trials that aren't signed,

Regulating for the exceptional can be a nuisance for producers but it would be easy enough to inset a signer for public trials. They do it on other programs which have less public interest.

people in hospital wont be able to watch,

This might sound unbelievable but TVs have been installed in hospitals all over the place. Finding a show that all patients agree to is more of a problem.

shift workers won't be home when trials are broadcast.

Of course, only those at home in the middle of the day would be able to see live transmissions but very many more people would be able to see the trials than can see them now.

It's neither possible or necessary to allow everyone in the country to see every trial.

Obviously. But this does not prevent television channels from producing public service programs such as important trials.

The public is served best if justice is done in the courts and there's no grounds for believing that TV cameras will further that end.

In a democracy, the transparency of the justice system is valuable and serves to inform the public who, in turn, are expected to elect the legislators.

The courts are covered by articles 34 - 37. Art. 34.1 says:-

"Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public."

Quite so.

You'll note that the first word is 'Justice'. If televising trials would interfere with justice then it shouldn't happen. I think that turning trials into entertainment would lessen the prospect of justice being served so I'm against the idea.

Making trials more public serves the letter and spirit of our Constitution and it does not follow that people getting more access to coverage of trials would affect the administration of justice except positively in that justice will be seen to be done.

[Baron von Biffo]

Most people have a TV and where trials are televised they could have simultaneous translations.

Regulating for the exceptional can be a nuisance for producers but it would be easy enough to inset a signer for public trials. They do it on other programs which have less public interest.

This might sound unbelievable but TVs have been installed in hospitals all over the place. Finding a show that all patients agree to is more of a problem.

Of course, only those at home in the middle of the day would be able to see live transmissions but very many more people would be able to see the trials than can see them now.

Obviously. But this does not prevent television channels from producing public service programs such as important trials.

In a democracy, the transparency of the justice system is valuable and serves to inform the public who, in turn, are expected to elect the legislators.

Quite so.

Making trials more public serves the letter and spirit of our Constitution and it does not follow that people getting more access to coverage of trials would affect the administration of justice except positively in that justice will be seen to be done.

The medium has an impact on the message. The media would have control over what trials were aired and what parts of those trials were shown on news broadcasts. That would inevitably mean that trials that appeal to our prurient side would get greatest coverage as they would do most for the ratings.

That's bad enough but the media would also be able to push their own agendas as well. It would be very easy for instance, to use selected clips from a dole fraud trial to drum up support for SW cuts.

Aside from media bias there are other concerns. You'll recall the obscene events in a Kerry court where locals queued to shake the hand of a rapist. Imagine how witnesses would feel if they knew that their evidence was being broadcast into the homes of his supporters.

There's also a risk that barristers could be intimidated into refusing to defend those accused of crimes that provoked public disgust. When soap opera stars are berated in the streets for the antics of their screen characters, it's not difficult to guess what could happen to a barrister who defended someone who was guilty in the public eye.

Television cameras in the courts are not neutral. They will distort the process and I can't see how that serves the public interest in justice being done.

[Holly]

... That would inevitably mean that trials that appeal to our prurient side would get greatest coverage as they would do most for the ratings.

Speak for yourself, BvB. Some trials are more sensational than others.

That's bad enough but the media would also be able to push their own agendas as well. It would be very easy for instance, to use selected clips from a dole fraud trial to drum up support for SW cuts.

The same could be said of press reports. The general public rely on the media to be enlightened.

Aside from media bias there are other concerns. You'll recall the obscene events in a Kerry court where locals queued to shake the hand of a rapist. Imagine how witnesses would feel if they knew that their evidence was being broadcast into the homes of his supporters.

Being a witness carries the need for some courage. In special circumstances the state can provide protection.

There's also a risk that barristers could be intimidated into refusing to defend those accused of crimes that provoked public disgust. When soap opera stars are berated in the streets for the antics of their screen characters, it's not difficult to guess what could happen to a barrister who defended someone who was guilty in the public eye.

Doubtless, barristers are made of sterner stuff.

Television cameras in the courts are not neutral. They will distort the process and I can't see how that serves the public interest in justice being done.

I have explained that justice is served when the public is knowledgeable of cases and this is a constitutional right. Press reports already do a job and it could be enhanced by television. It is 2012 after all. I am in no doubt that this will come soon.

[Baron von Biffo]

Speak for yourself, BvB. Some trials are more sensational than others.

And the media serve sensation rather than the public interest.

The same could be said of press reports. The general public rely on the media to be enlightened.

And where has that led us?

Being a witness carries the need for some courage. In special circumstances the state can provide protection.

Shatter is closing dozens of rural garda stations because the state can't afford to police much of the country any more. What hope of round the clock protection? And even if it could be afforded, would people want to live like that?

Doubtless, barristers are made of sterner stuff.

A media frenzy in the UK led to a paediatrician being driven from her home by vigilantes. A barrister who successfully defended someone accused of a high profile crime that had public sentiment running high, could be at serious risk if the media were irresponsible.

I have explained that justice is served when the public is knowledgeable of cases and this is a constitutional right. Press reports already do a job and it could be enhanced by television. It is 2012 after all. I am in no doubt that this will come soon.

Well no, you didn't explain, you asserted. Any possible benefit from televising trials has to be weighed against the damage it could cause.

[PaddyJoe]

Paschal Donohoe, Karl Whelan, Juliet Tennent(Goodbody) and German investigative journalist Harald Schumann.
Banking supervision, ESM, ECB and what it all means for Ireland.

[Holly]

...
Well no, you didn't explain, you asserted. Any possible benefit from televising trials has to be weighed against the damage it could cause.

Televising trials will not cause any damage.

[Baron von Biffo]

Televising trials will not cause any damage.

There's that worry put to bed.

[homer]

I agree with B von Biffo on this,

TV would lead to lawyers playing to the gallery - it has made a mess of US trials

[Saoirse go Deo]

I think they should be recorded (audio would suffice if the cost of video is prohibitive) and the tape published after the trial along with the judgment.

[DCon]

Paschal Donohoe, Karl Whelan, Juliet Tennent(Goodbody) and German investigative journalist Harald Schumann.
Banking supervision, ESM, ECB and what it all means for Ireland.

Why bother having Paschal on the panel?

[PaddyJoe]

Why bother having Paschal on the panel?

To spin the government line, I suppose

[musashi]

Not everyone has a television, people in the Gaeltacht will say their rights are not served if the trial is in English, The deaf will say they can't follow trials that aren't signed, people in hospital wont be able to watch, shift workers won't be home when trials are broadcast.

It's neither possible or necessary to allow everyone in the country to see every trial.

The public is served best if justice is done in the courts and there's no grounds for believing that TV cameras will further that end.

The courts are covered by articles 34 - 37. Art. 34.1 says:-

"Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public."

You'll note that the first word is 'Justice'. If televising trials would interfere with justice then it shouldn't happen. I think that turning trials into entertainment would lessen the prospect of justice being served so I'm against the idea.

forgot what I was going to say, just saw Paschal, OH NO!

[Holly]

... TV would lead to lawyers playing to the gallery - it has made a mess of US trials

The conservative skeptics claimed the same about televising parliament and they have been proved wrong.