For the last seven months, the world has been gripped by the trial of Oscar Pistorius, as cameras have given us a fascinating and in-depth insight into the trial itself and the South African justice system.
This trial is by no means a trend setter when it comes to being televised - the O.J. Simpson trial was also broadcast back in 1994 - but we are left asking the question ‘is is right to televise criminal trials?’
There is no doubt that the trial has captured the attention and the imagination of the world as we have been able to keep truly on top of proceedings like never before - not to mention we can now also have our say on what is happening through the social media.
In a way, watching a trial via a website or TV is not much different from sitting in the public gallery and witnessing it live and first hand - something that we are all entitled to do in this country.
Filming has never been permitted in English courts nor are any photographs allowed to be taken during a trial. Does this give us a distorted view of the justice system? Moreover, you never really get a true sense of what is happening when you hear about events second hand from a reporter.
Surely, we would get a better insight into the justice system if we were allowed to see what actually goes on behind those closed doors. The public also has a right to know how serious crime is being dealt with in this country, by televising trials; we will be able to see for ourselves whether justice has been served. Plus, there would also be a record should any type of misconduct claim ever be made.
Televising trials would make the justice system open and honest rather than something that happens in secret that most of the country is not privy to.
Of course, there are always two sides to any argument and there are some pretty strong reasons as to why we shouldn’t have cameras in our courtrooms.
Firstly, a filmed trial does put even more pressure on the lawyers and the judge - the logistical implications of broadcasting inside a courtroom would inevitably take their attention away from where it is needed… on seeing that justice is served.
Moreover, would televised trials actually make lawyers and judges celebrity figures? Is that something that we really want for our judicial system? In this country, the profession of law has been a very dignified and respected one; do we want to see that go out of the window, as they become regulars on television? There is also a danger that some lawyers would perhaps play to the cameras in the hope of landing more work and clients.
The Pistorius trial has been a little different as there has not been a jury to consider - how much pressure would be put on the jury if they knew that the trial was going to be televised? Jurors and court officials could be placed in danger is a verdict is particularly controversial.
Jury members and witnesses would also be the stars of the trial as well and no doubt, there would be an army of reporters looking for them to sell their stories after the trail had been completed.
“Celebrity” is no longer an exclusive club with everyone clambering for their fifteen minutes in the spotlight. Would televising trials become more about celebrity and exposure that justice?
You could argue that there may not too much interested to see a regular Joe on trail for murder. The trial of Pistorius, O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson were such big stories because they were stars who had fallen from grace. Has everyone simply been drawn to these legal proceedings for a desperate need for gossip rather than finding the truth?
Pistorius’ defence team did not want the trial to be televised and they argued that some witnesses might not come forward to testify if it was broadcast. However, the trial did not show the face of any witness who did not want to be filmed, nor did the witnesses appear to be under any extra pressure whilst giving their evidence or under harsh cross-examination.
But has this televised trial been fair to Oscar Pistorius himself? Every movement, nod, smile, and tear has been scrutinised over the last seven months and - at times - this really has felt like a trial by media not by the court. Pistorius has been vilified and ridiculed like no other murder suspect - I don’t recall another trial where the accused has been treated in this manner.
There is no denying that social media has had a huge role to play in this and this would have been the case if there had been cameras in the court or not. Social media sites such as Twitter have allowed journalists to give a moment-by-moment account of the case - as long as they stay with the reporting parameters.
Pistorious has been found guilty of culpable homicide - a verdict that did anger many when it was announced last month. His sentence will be handed down to him on Tuesday, and the prosecution have called for a minimum sentence of ten years in jail.
The defence are arguing that Pistorius - who is a first time offender - should not be sent to prison, and perhaps house arrest would be a better alternative. The judge will give her verdict on Tuesday.
There is no doubt that the trial of Oscar Pistorius has gripped the world with many people calling it the ’trial of the century’. It has given us a real insight into the South African justice system, which as, for the most, coped well with the focus and the scrutiny.
Like many people, I have been glued to the trial over the last seven months as I have never had the opportunity to watch a trial live - I was far too young to watch the proceedings of O.J. Simpson back in the mid nineties.
Personally, I am a little on the fence when it comes to televising trials in the UK - there are some very strong pros and cons for broadcasting and not broadcasting and I am still not 100% sure that justice is truly served by allowing cameras into our courtrooms. The court rules are so strict in this country that I don’t think we are going to see them follow in the footsteps of South Africa or the U.S. any time soon.
Tagged in Oscar Pistorius