In this day and age, when the minutiae of everyday life is documented on social media; when a presidential candidate can be undone by an open mic; when the comings and goings of every person in every nook and cranny of a downtown area of a major city (London, UK) is captured on CATV; when dashboard cams and nursery cams and even human body cams are becoming the norm; it is interesting there are still places where cameras are not allowed, much less not omnipresent.
I am speaking specifically about Canadian courtrooms. There is a certain irony here. In any of the examples I cited above, an argument could be made for some kind of expectation of privacy. Sure, they are public places, but blanket, 24-hour surveillance seems a bit over-the-top in a free society. A courtroom, on the other hand, by the very fundamental principles of the justice system is open. After-the-fact, the proceedings and rulings are public record. Anybody can order an audio recording for a nominal fee, or a transcript for considerably more, but they are available. Written decisions are published on the Internet. And yet, with the exception of the Supreme Court, it is very rare for Canadian courts to allow video cameras.
In fact, except for credentialed journalists, such as myself, who can record (audio only) for the accuracy of our own reports, but not for broadcast, cell phones are not even allowed in courtrooms. This regulation, interestingly enough, is no longer enforced, at least not in Yorkton, I assume that is because cell phones are so ubiquitous, they are like clothing now. When one goes off (and inevitably this happens pretty much every day in court) the judges do not even react anymore as long as the offender quickly and discreetly turns the sound off.
Recently, a Court of Queen’s Bench judge in Alberta decided to allow television cameras to record his verdict in the high profile Vader murder case.
Whether this should be standard practice kind of cuts both ways for me. On the one hand, it seems a logical extension of the openness principle. On the other, I kind of selfishly would like to preserve my journalistic privilege.
That is a joke, by the way, although one based on real emotion.
I quickly get over that emotion, however, when I consider the arguments for cameras in courts. The most important of these is the reputation of the justice system. This is something that permeates every aspect of court proceedings. From alternative measures applications to bail hearings to sentencing, judges must consider how their decisions impact public faith in the administration of justice.
Polls and studies show most Canadians do not understand how justice and corrections work in this country. The same polls show a lot of Canadians think the courts are too soft on criminals. But as knowledge increases so does trust in the integrity of the system. That makes sense because it is generally understood in psychology that absence of knowledge correlates with fear. Broadcasting court proceedings could go a long way to enhancing knowledge and trust in the system.
Not a lot of people are interested in going, or have the time to go to court these days. I wonder if more people would engage if they could tune in on TV or the Internet. It seems it certainly could not hurt.
Then again, I also wonder if there could be an Observer Effect. The Observer Effect is a physics principle that notes measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system.
Of course, with justice, we have a case study to examine. The Americans have allowed cameras in courtrooms for years. The most high profile case ever is perhaps the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Much criticism of courtroom cameras came with the notoriety of that case. A lot hinged on the performances of the lawyers, judge and made-for-TV drama such as the famous “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” moment. Some people believe to this day the very presence of TV cameras affected the outcome of that case.
It is possible increased scrutiny could influence the operation of the justice system, but that might not be such a bad thing either depending on a person’s point of view.
In any event, it is no reason to keep cameras out of the courtroom. Ultimately, anything that fosters accountability is a good thing.
