LEGAL OPINION: RIGHT OF COURT CASES TO BE TELEVISED
             The 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 William Kennedy Smith, he was at first, convicted in the mind of the public, based on newspaper accounts, until the public was able to observe the strength of his case and the weakness of the prosecution. 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. Also, television coverage of court cases would again prove to be more beneficial to the administration of justice because of the fac!
             t that there is a greater tendency of the case to remain progressive and honest with the public directly involved. Witnesses will be more inclined to speak the truth for fear that someone will n...