Looking on with great interest at the circus that is the Donald Trump trial it occurred to me that the bedrock of the criminal judicial system - both in the United States as well as here in Trinidad & Tobago - is that the system is designed so that trials can be held in public. Indeed, anyone can enter a courtroom at nay time during a criminal trial and sit and listen to whatever is going on. But this system evolved over the years long before television - or even radio, for that matter - was ever invented.
So if the 'raison d'etre' of criminal trials includes the fact that we all agree that criminal trials ought to be held in public because we (the public) have an inalienable right to know, then why shouldn't television and radio be allowed in our court rooms? It seems to me that the fact that modern technology has made it possible for us to "attend" an event even though we are not actually physically present, then we should go with the times and allow radio and television into our courtrooms as a matter of course. Naturally, there would have to be some rules about this. For example, the cameras and microphones would have to be static (i.e., not capable of being moved). Also, there would obviously be no commentators allowed inside the courtroom. Obviously, nothing should be done that would create a distraction.
If we all agree that criminal trials should be held in public in keeping with the public's right to know, then there is absolutely no good reason why cameras and microphones should not be allowed. It is only our innate conservatism that prevents us from moving boldly with the times into the twenty first century.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment