Vote: Do You Want Cameras in Criminal Court Rooms?
The decision is being heralded for its transparency, but will it come at a cost to individual rights?
The Illinois Supreme Court has given the state’s circuit courts the right to allow filming during trial proceedings.
With the permission of judges within Cook and Will counties, Southland news media sources would be able to bring television and still cameras into courtrooms to shoot certain criminal cases.
By issuing a few ground rules off the bat, the high court has resolved a few of the immediate issues pitting transparency against the rights of individuals. After an interview with Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride, Illinois Statehouse News notes:
- Jurors and potential jurors may not be photographed.
- Cameras and recording devices will not be allowed in juvenile, divorce, adoption, child custody and evidence suppression cases.
- No more than two television cameras and no more than two still photographers will be allowed in a courtroom at one time.
- Victims of violent felonies, police informants and relocated witnesses may request that the judge prohibit them from being photographed.
Illinois had been only one of 14 states that did not allow cameras to record criminal trials.
The high court’s decision is being considered as part of a pilot program and will be continued, tweaked or abandoned at some point down the road.
In a statement, Circuit Court of Will County Chief Judge Gerald R. Kinney said it may be months before he and his fellow judges decide whether to participate.
“Our primary concern is to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected and that any coverage is allowed in the least obtrusive manner,” Kinney said. “This is a new concept at the Circuit Court level and we must proceed cautiously yet expeditiously.”
Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans was more optimistic. He called the new policy “a positive change in the right direction” in a statement of his own, noting that an advisory committee consisting of judges, attorneys, members of the media and the public will be tasked with setting specific modes of procedure.
“The reality is we live in a time of a tremendous amount of media, but it doesn’t mean that media is always successful,” said Kathleen Rinehardt, general counsel for Saint Xavier University in Chicago.
Take reality television: what you see on one tidy half-hour of Judge Judy isn’t what you get in the courts.
“The judicial process isn’t quick … and you have to be really attentive to what’s going on,” she added. “Conversely, there are going to be defendants and plaintiffs who don’t want to be exposed in that manner.”
Con Serned
11:15 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
I really think that the accused as well as the defendants in most cases have a right to privacy. If I was involved in a trial, I would not want cameras in the room. I believe it would make people more self conscious and also make things more theatrical. We really don't have to invade everyone's privacy and "peep": into every aspect of the law. What about victims' rights? Don't they have the right to privacy?
Jesse Marx
3:23 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Con Serned,
In answer to your second to last question, Illinois Statehouse News interviewed the Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride on this concern and noted: "Victims of violent felonies, police informants and relocated witnesses may request that the judge prohibit them from being photographed."
Con Serned
3:41 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Thanks Jesse, I did see that, but it is then up to the judge to determine if they can be photographed. If I witness a non-violent felony and had to testify, I would be very uncomfortable with photography in the courtroom. Having to "take the stand" and testify in any matter in front of a room full of people is often disquieting, I think having even one camera there would intensify that feeling.
Jesse Marx
3:52 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Thanks for your input, that's definitely a point the Cook County Chief Judge's Office should take into consideration. Call (312) 603-6000 and hold them to task about this advisory committee, which is supposed to include members of the public.
While we're on topic, I spoke this morning with two defense attorneys who worry the cameras would have the opposite effect of what someone like Kathleen Rinehardt said, turning courtrooms into television shows where self-conscious judges and attorneys vie for public attention. It's also an interesting, albeit cynical, perspective.
Pat F
11:19 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
I see a lot of people refusing to get involved and help.. These cameras are going to expose people who try to do the right thing and testify but now they won't for fear of being outed!!
Baba Wawa
5:29 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
They're outed regardless of cameras. They're testifying in a public trial. Sketch artists can draw them and members of the media are in there taking notes on their testimony.
Jesse Marx
6:06 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Don't forget transcripts from the court reporter, though not every court room has one.
Richard Simon
12:32 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Innocent people are sometimes accused and tried, and are sometimes found not guilty. If you show them on TV their lives would be ruined. That is not a fair exposure to the public.
Baba Wawa
5:27 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Cameras or no cameras, you all should realize most trials and courtrooms are public proceedings and anyone in the world can walk in and watch and see everyone who testifies and hear all the juicy, sordid details, and obscene language.
So this "fear" that people's lives would be ruined from testifying, innocent people found not guilty is simply unfounded.
Tom
6:18 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Baba, you are correct about trials being open to the public, but a courtroom only holds so many people. Some of the past trials where the sensationalism overrides common sense bothers me. Innocent lives could be ruined,and there is always the possibility of the trials turning into a witch hunt as well as publicity seeking lawyers and judges using it for their own self promotion. This needs to be thought out a lot better than it has so far.
Tony
7:39 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I think the choice to have a camera in court during a trial should be up to the person being tried.
Chester Rook
2:29 am on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
I don't like this idea at all. While it's true trials are open to the public, anyone that has an interest or is that concerned is more than welcome to wake up and get down to the courthouse on their own. Televising something like this brings up privacy issues and would more than likely create a lot of anxiety for anyone testifying. I would strongly advise AGAINST bringing cameras into the courtroom.