right of court cases to be televised
LEGAL OPINION: RIGHT OF COURT CASES TO BE TELEVISEDThe debate of whether Canada's court cases should be televised has drawn much discussion since this medium had become utilised in the United States. This issue is even more relevant today, because of the advancement in sensational media coverage, which potentially covers more major cases in the continent. A few years ago, the televised trial of William Kennedy Smith in Florida, had flooded onto Canadian televisions and provided us with the opportunity to observe the American judicial system first-hand. As a result of this, the question arose if Canada's courtrooms should be televised, like our neighbours in the south or if they already work more effectively without the interference of television broadcasting. Televised trials in Canada would provide substantial benefits to the courtroom judicial process. Cases should be televised because the accused has the greatest opportunity for redemption when they are handed a non-guilty sentence in front of a viewing audience. The audience, while viewing the case, would be able to witness and understand the non-guilty decision, more so than they could obtain after reviewing only a summarised article in a newspaper. In the case of W
As a result, the legal process was delayed constantly and the correct verdict was not reached. Today, there are enough problems with various media embellishing the name of an "accused" person to the point where the public believes one has already been convicted of the crime, prior to the verdict being rendered. Thus, the current law in Canada, prohibiting televised coverage of trials should stand as is, as this provides a more fair and reasonable trial process for any accused person, overall. Witnesses will be more inclined to speak the truth for fear that someone will notice their inconsistencies. Lawyers would work harder to argue their cases more effectively, for positive publicity ("future business potential"), demonstrating their superior talents in the courtroom. There is no place for television cameras in our judicial system today. As a result, his reputation was largely restored within the public mind because they had the opportunity to examine the events that occurred within the trial on a first-hand basis. Court rooms are not places for camera filming and should be private to only those people involved with the trial. Also, the actions of the lawyers, witnesses, judge, and the accused involved in a televised case would be quite different form their actions if there was no camera present. In addition, there is a greater chance for the whole trial to become a "media circus", where the broadcasting of the trial i!s more important than the trial itself, and the main players become "media stars". Once the verdict is reached in a televised trial, the trial is over, and very little camera time is allocated to the analysis of the case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------**Bibliography**. became more television entertainers than legal personnel, making a mockery of justice. Under section 11(b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every Canadian has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Furthermore, judges would work harder to keep the focus on the trial at hand (and not on "side-issues"), and to ensure that their procedural actions will not result in consequences for improper officiating.
Common topics in this essay:
Johnny Cochrane,
OJ Simpson,
Kennedy Smith,
Smith Florida,
Freedoms Canadian,
Judge Judy,
COURT TELEVISED,
Canada Court,
verdict reached,
television coverage,
viewing audience,
William Kennedy,
william kennedy smith,
media coverage,
televised trial,
kennedy smith,
trial trial,
william kennedy,
judicial system,
coverage trials,
|
Acceptance Essays
