6 ms·

I 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 U

I 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 ago
Compare the defense of Μνησαρέτη: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne
- bcraven 6y ago
  Are 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      How did that case go?
      - 082349872349872 6y ago
        In the ancient greek case: acquittal. In the New Orleans case, the outcome wasn't part of the story. Even if the judge felt witness had been credibly impeached, the manner of impeachment corroborates a solicitation charge, so I'd guess: conviction.
laurent92 6y ago
In France we have presumption-of-innocence laws, but presuming innocence participates to justice not working: Look at the last people who have been killed during the summer and you’ll notice a worrying trend — they have 10, 20, 47 repeat offenses. At one point you have to think of the victims too. For 20 repeat offenses recorded, there has been hundreds of beat-ups. I met a guy who said he’s been 200 times (his estimate) in custody between 13 and 18. He had only been condemned once, at 19. He bragged to me about how many French people he bullied, including locking up a fat kid in a basement for 3 weeks. You have to think of the victims. Again, look at repeat offenses of usual criminals in newspapers, and remind yourself that they have been presumed innocent to the extreme and only condemned for cases which have been extensively proven, where victims dared to talk, knowing he has a condemnation rate of less that 0,5% per arrest.
- Stupulous 6y ago
  Imagine being released from prison and told, "Whether or not you return to crime, if anyone ever accuses you again, we're going to assume you're guilty and send you back." I think you get a lot more victims that way, even before you count the reformed criminals who are now victims of the state. Criminal history should absolutely factor in to a case, and I believe it does in the US. But it is imperative for society at large that innocent people can expect to go unpunished.
  - mhuffman 6y ago
    I agree, but after 20, 47, 200 assaults or robberies, at some point, someone needs to start noticing a pattern and doing something about it! Tomorrow is a new day! and Start with a clean slate! are laudable goals and ideals for us to have and we would all want that for ourselves ... but maybe not to the point of delusion and detriment to society?
    - bawolff 6y ago
      If someone has been found guilty of 200 actual assualts, by all means, exponentially increasing punishment is fine with me. However 200 (potentially false) accusations of assualt shouldn't matter. Otherwise a bad actor could just repeatedly accuse someone until the accusee hits the 200 (or whatever) limit.
runawaybottle 6y ago
Right. Innocent until proven guilty. The public also runs with any and all salacious narratives and court cases can turn accusations into a sentencing in itself via shaming. The old ‘so, I heard you finally stopped beating your wife’ trope where the inference is enough to destroy people, true or not. We see a lot of this on Reddit. Shaming is a powerful tool, but often should be reserved for punching up (power structures like the government, law enforcement, and large organizations ((not a small business)). Your average person is flawed and trial by public shaming seems cruel and unusual. Like yeah, I get it, the random person you are filming is a racist but is the punishment the front page of Reddit? What’s your plan when the social climate changes and the stuff you do is now fodder to be recorded? There are some people that will record American women dressed revealing in other countries because, hey, culturally it’s shameful to dress like that. How there isn’t a bunch of public defamation lawsuits for this stuff boggles my mind. I can legally be a piece of shit, that doesn’t mean you get to just record me on one day out of my life and broadcast it on the internet. Social media is going around banning misinformation. At some point, I want to see a crackdown on online public defamation. But yeah, back to the point, no - you shouldn’t be able to record one of the worst moments of my life as I fight to clear my name in court.
Teknoman117 6y ago
Just look at what it did to congressional inquiries. You just end up with a bunch of misinformed or willfully ignorant senators and representatives asking rarely useful questions of people just so they can be on CSPAN grilling that CEO that the media currently doesn't like. No one cares about solving the issues so long as there's enough footage sent home to the voters to get reelected.
- michaelt 6y ago
  How do you think the senators would act if they knew voters wouldn't see their performance?
  - _lazlo 6y ago
    Kleptocracy could be preferable to Ochlocracy.
  - chiefofgxbxl 6y ago
    They could release transcripts, which would be far less theatrical than video and audio. Sure, transcripts may contain some grandstanding, but it's not as spicy as a 20 second tweeted clip. The Supreme Court disallows cameras, but release audio, so those who wish to follow the court can still do so.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    Better, I think. Probably we'd be spared absurd stunts like Mazie Hirono asking SCOTUS nominee Amy Barret this past week if she ever raped anyone.
    - tt433 6y ago
      I think the point of those questions is just to establish a baseline of truth in congressional testimony, it's not really "stunt" related. It would become a stunt in retrospect if it were found ACB lied to Congress, which is a crime. Get as many factual comments on record as you can, and then you have a bigger quiver later.
- 6y ago
ransom1538 6y ago
"I like the idea of complete transparency" Really? I have an issue with subpoenas. Subpoenas can make public to the court your phone records, your phone images, emails to your ex from 2008, your text messages etc. You want to have a divorce court publish all your iphone text messages and photos? I think once a subpoena is requested the court must turn private -- at least to protect the innocent.

082349872349872 6y ago

Compare the defense of Μνησαρέτη: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne

bcraven 6y ago
Are 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    How did that case go?
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      In the ancient greek case: acquittal. In the New Orleans case, the outcome wasn't part of the story. Even if the judge felt witness had been credibly impeached, the manner of impeachment corroborates a solicitation charge, so I'd guess: conviction.

laurent92 6y ago

In France we have presumption-of-innocence laws, but presuming innocence participates to justice not working: Look at the last people who have been killed during the summer and you’ll notice a worrying trend — they have 10, 20, 47 repeat offenses. At one point you have to think of the victims too. For 20 repeat offenses recorded, there has been hundreds of beat-ups. I met a guy who said he’s been 200 times (his estimate) in custody between 13 and 18. He had only been condemned once, at 19. He bragged to me about how many French people he bullied, including locking up a fat kid in a basement for 3 weeks. You have to think of the victims. Again, look at repeat offenses of usual criminals in newspapers, and remind yourself that they have been presumed innocent to the extreme and only condemned for cases which have been extensively proven, where victims dared to talk, knowing he has a condemnation rate of less that 0,5% per arrest.

Stupulous 6y ago
Imagine being released from prison and told, "Whether or not you return to crime, if anyone ever accuses you again, we're going to assume you're guilty and send you back." I think you get a lot more victims that way, even before you count the reformed criminals who are now victims of the state. Criminal history should absolutely factor in to a case, and I believe it does in the US. But it is imperative for society at large that innocent people can expect to go unpunished.
- mhuffman 6y ago
  I agree, but after 20, 47, 200 assaults or robberies, at some point, someone needs to start noticing a pattern and doing something about it! Tomorrow is a new day! and Start with a clean slate! are laudable goals and ideals for us to have and we would all want that for ourselves ... but maybe not to the point of delusion and detriment to society?
  - bawolff 6y ago
    If someone has been found guilty of 200 actual assualts, by all means, exponentially increasing punishment is fine with me. However 200 (potentially false) accusations of assualt shouldn't matter. Otherwise a bad actor could just repeatedly accuse someone until the accusee hits the 200 (or whatever) limit.

runawaybottle 6y ago

Right. Innocent until proven guilty. The public also runs with any and all salacious narratives and court cases can turn accusations into a sentencing in itself via shaming. The old ‘so, I heard you finally stopped beating your wife’ trope where the inference is enough to destroy people, true or not. We see a lot of this on Reddit. Shaming is a powerful tool, but often should be reserved for punching up (power structures like the government, law enforcement, and large organizations ((not a small business)). Your average person is flawed and trial by public shaming seems cruel and unusual. Like yeah, I get it, the random person you are filming is a racist but is the punishment the front page of Reddit? What’s your plan when the social climate changes and the stuff you do is now fodder to be recorded? There are some people that will record American women dressed revealing in other countries because, hey, culturally it’s shameful to dress like that. How there isn’t a bunch of public defamation lawsuits for this stuff boggles my mind. I can legally be a piece of shit, that doesn’t mean you get to just record me on one day out of my life and broadcast it on the internet. Social media is going around banning misinformation. At some point, I want to see a crackdown on online public defamation. But yeah, back to the point, no - you shouldn’t be able to record one of the worst moments of my life as I fight to clear my name in court.

Teknoman117 6y ago

Just look at what it did to congressional inquiries. You just end up with a bunch of misinformed or willfully ignorant senators and representatives asking rarely useful questions of people just so they can be on CSPAN grilling that CEO that the media currently doesn't like. No one cares about solving the issues so long as there's enough footage sent home to the voters to get reelected.

michaelt 6y ago
How do you think the senators would act if they knew voters wouldn't see their performance?
- _lazlo 6y ago
  Kleptocracy could be preferable to Ochlocracy.
- chiefofgxbxl 6y ago
  They could release transcripts, which would be far less theatrical than video and audio. Sure, transcripts may contain some grandstanding, but it's not as spicy as a 20 second tweeted clip. The Supreme Court disallows cameras, but release audio, so those who wish to follow the court can still do so.
- eplanit 6y ago
  Better, I think. Probably we'd be spared absurd stunts like Mazie Hirono asking SCOTUS nominee Amy Barret this past week if she ever raped anyone.
  - tt433 6y ago
    I think the point of those questions is just to establish a baseline of truth in congressional testimony, it's not really "stunt" related. It would become a stunt in retrospect if it were found ACB lied to Congress, which is a crime. Get as many factual comments on record as you can, and then you have a bigger quiver later.
6y ago

ransom1538 6y ago

"I like the idea of complete transparency" Really? I have an issue with subpoenas. Subpoenas can make public to the court your phone records, your phone images, emails to your ex from 2008, your text messages etc. You want to have a divorce court publish all your iphone text messages and photos? I think once a subpoena is requested the court must turn private -- at least to protect the innocent.