Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised

I thank dasamster for his arguments. To make my post easier to read, I have split it into several sections. === BURDEN OF PROOF === I would firstly like to clarify the burden of proof in this debate: it is on Pro to show that cameras benefit the judicial system as a whole. As Con, I need only show that what dasamster suggests isn't necessary for an effective judiciary. I will also show how allowing cameras into the courtroom actively undermines the justice system, but (although hopefully convincing) it is not strictly necessary for me to do this in order to win this debate. With that in mind, I move onto... === REBUTTAL === Dasamster's arguments can be split into four basic strands, which I shall deal with separately. Before I do so, I point out the interesting nature of the sources which he quoted - more specifically, the first one [1]. The interesting thing is that this is actually a source that argues my side of the debate, and so when I quote from it, not only am I quoting the words of a former Justice of the New York Supreme Court, I am quoting someone who dasamster apparently believes to be authoritative enough to quote himself - thus, my use of his own source against him will prove especially damaging as I lay out my case. Moving on to dasamster's first argument: 1) That public confidence will be improved This clearly need not be a speculative question, as the U.S. has had cameras in the courtroom for a long time already - indeed, TruTV (formerly Court TV) was set up for this very purpose in 1991. [2] So for this argument to be effective, dasamster needs to give us some evidence that American public confidence in the judiciary has indeed improved since then. He has not done so. Indeed, retired Justice Siracuse says in the aforementioned source quoted by dasamster himself: "...we have seen increasing television coverage of trials, not only in New York but across the country. In the same period public confidence in the judicial system -- and, indeed, in the entire legal profession -- has plunged. By any measure one cares to use, the judiciary is held in lower esteem now than at any time within memory." [1] Dasamster's appeal to an alleged "increase in public confidence" needs to survive this difficulty. It has not yet done so. 2) That the judiciary system suffers ridicule in the media, giving an unrepresentative image of the justice system I agree that this is the case. However, it isn't clear how this would change under dasamster's proposal - after all, the overwhelming majority of people would not have the time nor inclination to watch the actual court trials themselves. They generally consider themselves to have more important things to do, such as going to work and school, having dinner or watching the football/baseball/other-sport-of-choice. Even those who watch trials on TruTV will generally only have the time/inclination to watch the edited highlights - in other words, the parts deemed by the media to be the most important parts of the trial. This is exactly what they do at present in the courtroom, and any ridicule or unrepresentative image presented at the moment would only continue with trials recorded by camera. 3) People have a right to access the justice system, and so should be allowed to watch court proceedings at a time that suits them. Yes, people have a right to know what happens in the justice system. Yes, they have a right to transparency. This does not, however, lead to a right for the general public to know absolutely everything about any particular trial: too much information has a dilutary effect. It becomes impossible for them to know what information they need to know, and they become overwhelmed by what's available – this can serve no useful purpose to anyone. Instead, the general public only have a right to know the salient details: broadly speaking, the key evidence presented, the verdict given, and the reason behind the verdict. This is already given by the media in news and analysis, and by the judge and the courts in published verdicts and court reports. There is no need for cameras in the courtroom. 4) The justice system needs to serve an educational purpose, which is not served without cameras in the courtroom Dasamster specifies the two types of people who may wish to view court proceedings: non-lawyers and those in law school. But for neither of these groups is it necessary to introduce cameras. To the first group: a commentary for non-lawyers already happens through media reports, and it is not clear why dasamster believes that allowing cameras into the courtroom makes the situation better. Indeed, I've already shown how nothing would ever change if cameras are allowed into the courtroom. The second group, namely lawyers, already have enough information about what happens in the courtroom! Full transcripts of what transpired in the courtroom are already typed up by stenographers in the court, the reasons behind the judge's verdicts are already publicised and used in law classes, and many law schools have mooting and advocacy practice sessions to prepare the student for public speaking in the courtroom. Plus, after all, the law student will surely be able to supplement this already-extensive experience through actually watching a trial from the public gallery in their spare time... what more preparation could dasamster possibly want law students to have? I hope it is clear from all of the foregoing why dasamster's arguments fall. I shall now seek to solidify my case by introducing... === SUBSTANTIVE === The justice system is primarily about ensuring that the right verdict is reached according to the evidence presented: any educational purpose is surely secondary to this goal. As retired Justice Siracuse quotes approvingly in the source used by dasamster himself: "The purpose of the court is not education or spectacle or public entertainment, but justice." [1] It is surely right that transparency in the justice system is also a key part, but this is already reached through what happens anyway: the use of cameras is not necessary here. Given that it is not necessary, the dangers that surround the use of cameras should serve to warn us away from putting them in the courtroom. These mostly derive from the increased pressure on participants within the trial itself, as naturally, by making intimate court proceedings open to a theoretically infinite audience, more people will see the precise details of what goes on in the courtroom. For reasons of space, I shall deal now mainly with getting witnesses and victims of crime to testify in court, given the importance of this procedure to both sides of the case: to the prosecution, it is important to get eye-witnesses to the crime in order to bolster their case; for the defence, it is important to cross-examine the witnesses to ensure accuracy and consistency in testimony. It is already difficult to convince witnesses and victims to testify for a variety of reasons, from sensitivity to active or indirect intimidation. This problem has been identified for many decades, and indeed centuries, with one New York Times article (for instance) raising this issue as far back as 1894. [3] Publicising the identifiable faces, mannerisms and actions of witnesses, and thus putting this information into the public domain could only ever serve to increase this problem. In conclusion, we shouldn't have cameras in the courtroom. It doesn't create any of the benefits that dasamster wants to show, thus his proposition falls; in addition, the consequent active harms only serve to strengthen rejection of this policy. Vote Con. Sources [1] http://amsir.home.isp-direct.com... [2] http://www.trutv.com... [3] http://query.nytimes.com...