8 ms·
Charles Lindbergh is the reason the U.S. doesn't have cameras in the courtroom
- pmoriarty 6y agoThe only two illegal photos taken inside the US Supreme Court in session, 1932-1937 https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/photos-inside-supreme-court-in-session/ https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/photos-inside-supreme-court...
- LeoPanthera 6y agoThis is the old courtroom, right? Which is now open to the public.
- jamestimmins 6y agoI'm surprised that there are spectators in the room. I always assumed that Supreme Court sessions only included the judges and lawyers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dehrmann 6y agoI'd be surprised if something so important weren't open to the public. > All oral arguments are open to the public, but seating is limited and on a first-come, first-seated basis. https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralarg...
- bluGill 6y agoIn the constitution you have the right to a public trial. It is an easy argument that your appeal is part of your trial even if you are not there yourself.
- SllX 6y agoGood. C-SPAN cameras turned Congress into a show and I’m not convinced we’re better off for it.
- alphabettsy 6y agoI tend to agree with you. Too often politicians are playing to the cameras hoping for a soundbite rather than engaging in substantive debate.
- 082349872349872 6y agoWould conducting legislative business via IRC (or text-only Slack/Discord) be a substantive improvement? (or would legislators wind up texting A/S/L and deploying filibuster bots?)
- Aunche 6y agoEverything would be the same except it's not recorded. A transcript can provide transparency but would be much harder to sensationalize.
- C19is20 6y agoI've never voted, never will. Mainly because politicians don't really debate: that being, to convince an opposition to change their minds. I know sometimes politicians have gone against their party's wishes, but I can't see those being as a result of a well constructed idea from the opposition.
- eru 6y agoFrom what I can tell, there's plenty of that kind of debating done in German politics. Especially also because coalition governments are the norm. Would you vote there?
- alphabettsy 6y agoThis may have some truth in national politics, but state and certainly local politics have much more substantive discussions.
- andrewflnr 6y agoThe idea that cameras "had a corrosive influence on the dignified conduct of American jurisprudence" is a deeply odd one, for all that it seems to be obviously true. What is the mechanism? I suspect it has more to do with how the footage is used outside the courtroom than anything that directly happens inside, but that's only a start of an answer. Is video actually easier to sensationalize than other media?
- SllX 6y agoPeople behave differently on camera than off. If you know you’re being recorded, this will have an effect on your actions. If you have career ambitions, then anywhere there’s a camera is a chance to move up by using that camera as a platform and the area it is recording as a stage. I want prosecutors, public defenders, lawyers and judges in our courtrooms. I want Representatives and Senators in Congress. The actors can stay in Hollywood.
- andi999 6y ago"The actors can stay in Hollywood." That ship has sailed since Reagan hasnt it.
- remarkEon 6y agoThe last bastion of "they can stay in Hollywood" is the Court. If we change the structure of how we cover it to reflect this kind of BS social media optimization, yeah, we'll get the actors on the Court and not actual judges.
- SllX 6y agoReagan was a politician last. He came out of Hollywood, he went to the White House and he worked the part, but he wasn’t on camera with all of his business in the Oval Office all the time. How is a Congressman supposed to negotiate on a bloody camera? That’s bad craft, you don’t negotiate that way, you don’t get anything done and we haven’t. Congress hasn’t and they’ve long let the White House run the show, bought into Nixon’s BS about being coequal branches when Congress used to reign supreme. Courts have a similar problem, if you have the public and the Republic breathing down their necks the whole time, how is a good Judge, Jury, Prosecutor and Defense supposed to bring justice with all of the details aired out to the public in such a visceral and relatable form? You want to know the facts of the case, you can go there in person or read the damn documents, and the people that need to know will put in the legwork. There’s no need to make every trial into a YouTube video.
- tertiary 6y agoI don't know how I feel about this. I like the idea of complete transparency, but even without being able to capture dramatic photos of courtroom battles the US already has trial by media in some cases. I feel like adding photos and videos to that would throw gasoline onto that fire and turn our judicial system into a reality show. I almost prefer the system in some European countries where they are not even allowed to release the names involved in criminal cases unless they have been found guilty.
- 082349872349872 6y agoCompare the defense of Μνησαρέτη: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne
- bcraven 6y agoAre you saying you'd like cameras in court in case a defendant gets her tits out? I think some more context to your point would be helpful!
- 082349872349872 6y agoI'm saying cameras in court are more likely to lead to theatrics (especially since they've already famously occurred) than to discovery of truth. A friend used to practice law in New Orleans. One of his courtroom anecdotes is that there was a stock phrase for prosecuting vice officers, something like "just before she placed her lips on it, I arrested her" but one memorable time when this hackneyed phrase was trotted out on the witness stand, Defendant blurted out "Oh, no you didn't! That was the best damn blowjob you ever got."
- saagarjha 6y agoHow did that case go?
- 082349872349872 6y ago
- remarkEon 6y agoHaving cameras in the court room would do 1000x more damage to the legitimacy of SCOTUS in the eyes of the public than seating blatant partisan justices, or even expanding seats. It would manufacture the kind of gross and disgusting meme-able content that we see in all other corners of media today, and it would turn these Judges into celebrity personalities rather than, ostensibly, impartial members of an independent branch of government. If you want to peek into oral argument, and actually learn something about the High Court, do yourself a favor and check out the incredible work Oyez does. They mash up the audio with the transcript, and sync it with a highlighted avatar for which Justice is speaking at the time. Having cameras in the court would destroy this medium of consumption, and relegate it to manipulated soundbites and distorted political ads. We should all detest any attempt to change the status quo here. Here's an example from Oyez. An interesting case that has some good back and forth, and highlights how this really is the best way to consume the history of the court. They have the entire record in there, and their website is very well organized, so you can find whatever case you want. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195
- reducesuffering 6y agoIncredible resource. I feel like this is what proponents of cameras want, a medium for understanding the thought process and types of debate that goes into SCOTUS decisions. There were many interesting observations. Like how there were still interruptions (thus how hard that must be to do away with in oral debate), how there were no “umms or likes” I observed (makes sense, they would be intelligent speakers), and above all how humanizing the occasional joke and laughter were, for decisions that have serious impact.
- jskdvsksnb 6y ago> how there were no “umms or likes” I observed (makes sense, they would be intelligent speakers) Some of the justices get their questions out ... very ... slowly. I don't know if you can necessarily attribute the lack of 'filler words' to some superior intellect. I'm sure the fact they all went to a few ivy league schools also trained them to speak in a particular manner.
- WalterBright 6y agoIn a related issue, it is illegal in Washington State for lawmakers to have private negotiations about bills. It's the "open meetings" law. I.e. you cannot discuss a bill with other lawmakers over coffee, over the phone, via email, etc. This law is very well intentioned. But it seems to have the opposite effect. Legislation can only be discussed in public hearings, and so they just turn into the lawmakers reading prepared grandstanding statements playing to the cameras.
- runawaybottle 6y agoIt could be a necessary evil. We already have corruption with stealth kickbacks and special interests siphoning budget from America. How much worse would it be if it was all behind the scenes?
- asutekku 6y agoIt already is behind the scenes. Do you really think people only discuss about it in public hearings.
- WalterBright 6y agoThe Seattle City Council did do it behind the scenes. Then they got slapped with a lawsuit over that.
- 082349872349872 6y agoI sometimes wonder if a rationale for the idea from The Republic of the guardians all sharing a common mess was an attempt to avoid politics via private dining. Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOPsAcy5FYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOPsAcy5FYk Wit 'fakeshang' mi showxa mebi walowda o mebi walowda walowda mang, demang xalte wit sif fo du ruchirowna. -- Da Dzhimi, Federalish 10 (1787)
- baybal2 6y agoIf a man turns into a clown in front of a camera, he would too be a clown in any other way. It greatly unsightly for a country to have people like these for the apex court justices.
- zw123456 6y agoDoes anyone remember watching the OJ trial on TV live ?
- pseingatl 6y agoCameras are allowed in Florida state courtrooms. Cameras are prohibited in federal courts. Strange that the article failed to mention the Dr. Sam Shephard murder trial: see, https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/docs/default-source/Bio-related-documents/television-cameras-in-court.pdf?sfvrsn=2&sfvrsn=2 https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/docs/default-source/Bio-relat... (pdf)
- giancarlostoro 6y agoWasnt there something about Ted Bundy being the first case or case of its type on camera? So they were not always on camera. Florida also has strong public record laws which I think more states should have to a degree. The people deserve to know what the police are doing after an investigation closes.
- chewxy 6y agoI thought the story of the kidnapping sounded a little familiar. And so TIL that Murder on the Orient Express was based on that real life story.
- nendroid 6y agoI think the government itself should record all trials not for public release but for archival, evidence and review. How else do you being down a racist or corrupt judge?
- godelzilla 6y agoRacism is a feature not a bug of the carceral system.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- RickJWagner 6y agowow. The kidnapping happened in 1932, it took 2 years to find the perpetrator, sentence (death) was carried out in 1936. The wheels of justice turned much faster then.
- jrace 6y agoI am interested in what would happen if we took this a step further. Judgments by judge or jury to be done 'blind'. Neither to see the person on trial. How many people are not given proper justice becuase of how they look? No matter what you will not be able to remove bias, whether it is being overly harsh because of the persons skin color, or overly easy because the person is attractive. https://www.thelawproject.com.au/insights/attractiveness-bias-in-the-legal-system https://www.thelawproject.com.au/insights/attractiveness-bia... >>in one study, the effects of physical attractiveness on judges were so influential, they fined unattractive criminals 304.88% higher than attractive criminals.
- xeromal 6y agoThat would be a fun experiment! Not even on racial bias, but heck, self identification or as you said, attractiveness. I wonder if you could hide away their voice too. Voices definitely are attractive or not to many peoples' ears.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoWe know how the public reacted to social media. If you think adding more cameras to Washington would help things... I guess if we are trying to maximize entertainment, it would be a good idea.