PERSPECTIVE OF A FORMER REPORTER (Sonya Elkins):
Whether an officer making a traffic stop, a customer making a purchase at a convenience store or a young B-lister trying to catch the public’s attention via tabloid fodder, much of public life and government in action today is caught on camera. How strange that the most powerful of courts in our country – where founding documents are interpreted and binding precedent set – is under some antiquated and outdated protectionist rule, safe from the glare of cameras in the cozy confines of the Supreme Court's courtroom. In today’s multimedia and CNN 24-hours news cycle society, the public’s access to information is driven by video, sound bites and images that have come to be taken for granted as an essential part of news coverage. Why then do we continue to follow a no cameras whatsoever policy behind the Supreme Court’s doors? This policy means for many average Americans that the only images evoked when asked about a Supreme Court justice will be those from their confirmation hearings, which at best tell us little about the justice, how they conduct themselves in the courtroom or their doctrinal beliefs and at worst shows the justices at tense hearings that may be low points of their professional lives.
Some of the arguments against cameras in the courtroom seem to evoke a fear of destroying that certain ‘je ne sais quoi’ that apparently makes up the dynamics between the nine chosen ones in our highest of courts. Kennedy has expressed a concern with destroying the dynamic of the courtroom while Thomas has lamented that it would change the proceedings and not for the better. Scalia’s concern has been voiced that cameras in the courtroom will turn the proceedings into entertainment. While their arguments are interesting and along the Narrative B lines likely do have some support in preserving the idea of a curiously near religious reverence for a secular space, they hardly seem compelling enough to justify barricading cameras from the Supreme Court. Keeping cameras out ensures that the public continues to feel estranged from and mystified by this central part of our government. Of course for some, preserving such a mystique is not an evil but a desirable result in and of itself to ensure the court’s continuing role and power. Apparently we better respect what we do not understand? Breyer has acquiesced that cameras will play in inevitable role in the Supreme Court. However, he adds, getting to the requisite comfort level to accept their entrance into the courtroom will be a long and complicated matter – and ‘we’re not there yet.’ But as the rest of the world and much of government is televised and exposed to the world around them, how long must we wait for these nine venerable figures to come to a unanimous decision about their comfort with these ‘moving pictures’ of the 21st century?
Kagan and Sotamayor have expressed openness to the idea of cameras in the courtroom, while Roberts has remained more noncommittal. Curiously, while former Justice Souter has expressed regret over the lack of public knowledge about the Supreme Court – according to a 2010 survey a mere 35 percent of the American public can name even one sitting justice – he is famously opposed to allowing cameras into the courtroom. Souter’s infamous remark on admitting them was that they would have to ‘roll over my dead body.’ In order to be more relevant in today’s society and familiar to the American public, the court needs to get over its discomfort with cameras and allow footage outside of an annual shot of a justice apparently sleeping through the State of the Union. Refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom ends up in absurdities such as reconstructions by actors during the Michael Jackson trial, hardly an example of how keeping cameras out of the courtroom preserved the solemnity of the court room. Supreme Court justices are relieved of political pressure because they are not up for election. However, heavily limiting the access of the press and eliminating the access of cameras simply goes too far – towards the end of unaccountability rather than reasonable safeguards.
Following a Breyer-acceptable slow process could involve the introduction of one camera available to a press pool to control distractions in the courtroom. Whether it would be a final solution or an interim step could be a matter of experimenting with the new form of media. However, the day is long past since there were viable and compelling justifications for keeping cameras out of the United States Supreme Court – if ever the new medium was so terrifying that such blanket bans were justified. In the past ‘the people’ attended court to participate in the community. Today we turn to news outlets and programs for that same communal experience. Images and video have a far greater impact then written words or later-released recordings and are indispensable in today’s media world. Much like the troubling symbolism behind closing its front doors to the public in 2010, keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court of the United States alienates the public and keeps them at a distance, maintaining the lack of understanding about the important institution of US government. It is past time for the court to open its doors to the public – literally and symbolically, by reopening those doors to the public and the news media for more meaningful and impacting coverage of the court available to the American people.
PERSPECTIVE OF A FORMER TEACHER (Karli Swift)
PERSPECTIVE OF A FORMER TEACHER (Karli Swift)
If a picture is worth a thousand words, than a video has to be worth one million words. But whether cameras in the courtroom will improve public accessibility is certainly debatable. Supporters of cameras in the courtroom, like Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit believe that cameras are the future and it’s time for the judiciary to get with times. Judge Kozinski remarked at a U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington, D.C., “like it or not, we are now well into the Twenty-First Century and it is up to those of us who lead the federal judiciary to adopt policies that are consistent with the spirit of the times and the advantages afforded us by new technology.”
Those who oppose cameras in the courtrooms, like former Supreme Court Justice David Souter who famously testified before Congress that “the day you see a camera enter our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body,” believe that cameras will have a negative impact on the administration of justice. They are concerned that lawyers will become stars, that people’s secrets will come to light and that ultimately the mystique of the court will be diminished. Justice Anthony Kennedy explained his opposition to Congress saying, “all in all, I think it would destroy a dynamic that is now a really quite splendid one and I don’t think we should take that chance.” Justice Clarence Thomas testified that cameras in the courtroom would “change our proceedings. And not for the better.” Justice Antonio Scalia, summed it up, “I think there’s something sick about making entertainment out of other people’s legal problems.”
Are the arguments opposing cameras in the courtroom persuasive? Our society is inundated with people’s problems. Turn your television on at any point during the day and you are likely to find at least one reality show. These shows range from the innocent to the ridiculous. And while those who are on reality television shows have made an affirmative decision to open their lives to the world, what is so bad about cameras in the courtroom? We know that most people in society have no concept of what courts do, cameras in the courtroom could raise awareness about the judicial system.
What is the real reason for opposition to cameras in the courtroom?
One name comes to mind: O.J. Simpson. The trial of the century illustrated for many court watchers and jurists themselves the potential result of cameras in the courtroom – turning a trial into a circus. The O.J. Simpson trial was the epitome of everything that could go wrong when there are cameras in the courtroom. The trial turned into a sensational, attention grabbing, debacle. But was it the cameras that made it happen? Since the O.J. trial, many have argued that Jonhnny Cochran hammed it up for the cameras. But wouldn’t he have done that anyway? Was it really for the cameras or for the jury? What about the role of the judge? Judge Ito certainly could have retained more control and authority over how the trial progressed.
So are cameras in the courtroom really an issue of judicial process, how judges handle their courtroom, or the possibility of a circus?
The solution for this conundrum is not to ban cameras entirely but to consider how they can be used a educational tool. Judges should be trained on how to manage their courtroom. Should the trial start to turn into a circus, the Judge should have the authority to remove the cameras, so long as transcripts of the trial are available. A total ban on cameras does not stop a sensational trial from garnering attention or from enhancing the celebrity of trial lawyers, what it does is continue to keep the public in the dark about the judicial system. Justices on the Supreme Court have to get over potentially opening themselves up to more critique and realize that, like it or not, people have opinions of them. Cameras might actually enhance public perception of them.
Read More:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/cameras-and-the-supreme-court/
No comments:
Post a Comment