BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Invoking public reaction can damage the lives of those concerned in the court case.

Proposition may well argue that televising court cases gains a sense of ‘sympathy’ and justice for the victims of the case. However, this is double-edged. Firstly, particularly emotive and controversial court cases concerning crimes such as sexual assault could blind the public (or ‘audience’) to any untruthfulness from the ‘victim’, by virtue of being perceived as vulnerable and wronged. Secondly, any sympathy which is gained for one person often arises out of increased hatred or outrage against another – namely the defendant. This could lead to public condemnation of an individual who is never actually convicted of a crime; they will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. One example of this is when Milly Dowler’s father was questioned in court as a suspect of his daughter’s death and his personal, pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him[1]. Although he was completely innocent, the prosecution’s job was to explore any possibility of perversion or dangerous character. This is an infringement upon that individual’s rights, as being publicly portrayed as a villain could go on to affect their future private life, such as their chances of future employment or anonymity. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8517521/Levi-Bellfield-trial-Pornography-made-Milly-Dowlers-father-first-suspect.html, accessed 19/08/11
Televising court cases undermines the right to privacy for the victim and the defendant’s family

Court proceedings can be extremely stressful for the families of the accused, and publicising them in this way only makes this worse. Again, a good example of this is the Milly Dowler case, when her father’s pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him[1]. Not only did he then have to try and come to terms with his daughter’s disappearance, but also the knowledge that the media – and his family – now knew intensely personal details about him which were not even relevant to the case, but used to try and condemn him anyway. Meanwhile, although the family members have done nothing wrong, they are forced to listen to critical evidence of another family member which is suddenly now broadcast into peoples’ homes directly from the court. Their public and private lives would be irrevocably transformed by this experience. Secondly, because the defence must try to protect the defendant, these vilifying tactics can also be used against the victim – which could then lead to fewer people being prepared to testify. There is already a problem in society where not all crimes are even reported, sometimes because the victims are afraid of how people will then think of them[2][3]. The knowledge that the defence will try to expose them as a fraud, or deny that the offence took place – in front of millions of people watching the case on television – suddenly becomes a much bigger obstacle for victims, especially if they are emotionally shaken by their experience[4], to come forward and help a criminal to be convicted. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8517521/Levi-Bellfield-trial-Pornography-made-Milly-Dowlers-father-first-suspect.html, accessed 19/08/11 [2] http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/crime-prevention/latest-crime-statistics, accessed 19/08/11 [3] http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6237368.ece, accessed 19/08/11 [4] Support group for women who have been victims of rape; helping them to testify in court http://www.justicewomen.com/testifying_tips.html, accessed 19/08/11
Witnesses and jurors could easily become involved in the media coverage of the case and place the trial at jeopardy.

Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already caused trials to be cancelled in the past[1] because the judiciary recognises that media coverage can change people’s incentives and warp their priorities. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness’ evidence or the jurors’ verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses and jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case[2]. If witnesses and jurors know that their public lives could be affected by how the rest of society perceives them through a court case, they might have an incentive to be more harsh or more lenient; public outrage when the criminal sentence does not match their own interpretations is likely to be laid on those who caused that sentence. This is particularly dangerous for America, where they have trial by jury[3]. Here, the jury has more control over the sentencing of criminals – which obviously becomes a problem if the jury has a vested interest in giving harsh sentences to offenders in order to gain public support. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus. [1] http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/press2.htm, accessed 19/08/11 [2] http://crimemagazine.com/oj-simpson-trial, accessed 19/08/11 [3] http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/jury/moreinfo/dialoguepart1.authcheckdam.pdf, accessed 19/08/11
People should have a right of access to justice.

When people take the time and effort to visit the law courts and watch a case, it is a formal, regulated atmosphere. If this were televised, it would become closer to ‘entertainment’ than to fair, legal proceedings. It becomes a human interest story rather than a legitimate court case, where the focus is on moral retribution rather than fair application of the law. Given that high-profile cases can go on for weeks, or even months, even if you were to broadcast every step of the court case it is likely that viewers would only tune in for the climax of the trial. This means that they would miss important (but perhaps comparatively boring) steps which led to that conclusion; it obscures the whole picture of the trial.
Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary.

A stenographer already records every word spoken during the course of the trial, which already serves to help with potential appeals[1][2]. Furthermore, appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts because they were not present at the original trial. Using a video record to overturn the verdict of a previous court would essentially eradicated the role of a jury; which is to reach a decision based on the fact presented, guided by the judge’s knowledge of the law[3][4]. Far from making court proceedings more democratic and transparent, using cameras in courtrooms would actually be damaging because it undermines the position of normal people to reach a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. In this case, a judge’s choice to hang a new verdict on video information would make the law a very exclusive practice where very few individuals can determine the fates of others, and the role of jury would become irrelevant. [1] In the UK: https://nextstep.direct.gov.uk/PlanningYourCareer/JobProfiles/JobProfile0884/Pages/default.aspx, accessed 18/08/11 [2] In the US: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos152.htm, accessed 18/08/11 [3] in the UK: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Thejudicialsystem/DG_181788, accessed 18/08/11 [4] In the US: http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/liberty/litb04.htm, accessed 18/08/11
Cameras encourage efficiency and high standards.

Putting this kind of pressure on the judiciary and lawyers does not have the same kinds of benefits that it might in the House of Commons. Politicians often focus on, and are expected to uphold, the general interest of the public, which is why having public access to televised debates is an incentive for them to push those interests through as far as possible. However, the rule of law does not always correlate to public opinion. Particularly in high-profile cases, the public may wish to see the accused given the harshest sentence possible; however, this might not be the legally correct sentence to give in those circumstances. Public outrage has been known to tamper with judicial verdicts in places such as India[1], and is damaging to the principle of a fair trial. [1] http://studyshare.in/share/showthread.php?2361-Jessica-Lal-Case-Study-Public-Outrage-and-Criminal-Justice-Lessons-Learnt, accessed 06/08/11
This turns court cases into entertainment, rather than legitimate legal proceedings.

It is unlikely that people will use court cases as a form of entertainment; if the entire case is televised, then a lot of the case will be ‘boring’ discussion of applying law and legal theory[1], rather than doling out punishment Judge Judy-style. Even if a few people do try to use it as entertainment, the potential benefit to wider society as they can literally see how their legal system works to protect them outweighs the very small number of people who might group court cases and reality television shows together. Furthermore, if somebody is convicted of a serious crime like murder, their chances of rehabilitation are already slim (and convicts often re-offend), whether it is televised or not[2]. Indeed, some would argue that they have forfeited their right to rehabilitation by committing murder in the first place[3]. However, if they were acquitted of a serious crime on television, future employers could be more likely to accept them as they could see exactly how the court progressed and arrived at that conclusion, rather than having it shrouded in mystery which could breed suspicion. [1] Transcript of a court case: http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/LongLloyd1.htm, accessed 18/08/11 [2] http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Rehab.pdf, accessed 19/08/11 [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7899143.stm, accessed 19/08/11
Invoking public reaction can damage the lives of those concerned in the court case.

Withholding video evidence of a court trial will not stop people from automatically siding with the victim and denouncing the accused; it will just stop them from being able to see the body language and other actions which can balance out the media’s assertion that one party is definitively a ‘victim’ while the other is a ‘criminal’. These labels are already in place – televising court cases just helps us to understand the details and nuances of a case, and garner a more sophisticated view of the case in question.
Televising court cases undermines the right to privacy for the victim and the defendant’s family

For the families of defendants, incriminating evidence of the defendant comes out anyway – the emotional problems are still there under the status quo, whether or not the trials are televised. For the victims, often a reason why cases are dropped or the victims decide not to testify is the idea that their case is not seen as important, or will not make a difference[1]. Giving a public focus to this cases, and emphasising public outrage against rape, sexual assault and other serious crimes, endorses victims’ rights and makes them see that justice for this crimes is incredibly important. Perhaps this is the best step towards encouraging more people to make a difference by coming forward to testify. [1] http://ezinearticles.com/?Rape---Problems-and-Solutions&id=3739958, accessed 19/08/11
Witnesses and jurors could easily become involved in the media coverage of the case and place the trial at jeopardy.

Juror involvement is made less likely by the proposition line that jurors’ faces will be blanked out during the broadcast. For witnesses, the potential to warp and distort the truth already exists; they could be trying to avoid a sentence, or to make sure that justice is done if they have been wronged. They are already emotionally involved. If anything, video footage of the trial could encourage them to temper their responses and make absolutely sure that they are accurate in order to avoid questioning by the media or incrimination for giving an inaccurate statement.
People should have a right of access to justice.

Given that people are already allowed to watch court proceedings from the public gallery – including the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the UK[1], and the Supreme Court in the US[2] – there is little reason why this should not be extended to give better access across the nation to anybody who wants to watch. Those with full-time jobs or who live far away from the courts are currently unfairly limited in this respect, and those who do wish to attend well-publicised trials often have to arrive hours in advance to get a seat. Individuals should not have to give up so much time and money just to be able to watch a democratic proceeding, which is a cornerstone of democratic nations. Given that many closed trials such as the trial of the Guantánamo Bay terrorism suspects[3] have still led to intense media coverage, we would be better off showing the courts to be transparent and just instead of vainly trying to hide everything behind closed doors. [1] http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/hoflbpjudicial.pdf, accessed 05/08/11 [2] http://blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/popular-places-to-visit, accessed 05/08/11 [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/september11.guantanamo, accessed 19/08/11.
Effect on the structure of the main political parties

Divided Government may in theory provide an impetus for co-operation but rather has been an opportunity for the divisiveness of the campaign to continue once the votes have been counted. Instead of co-operation, what is commonly seen is partisan tactics from both sides of the aisle to discredit the other side, preventing compromise and leading to gridlock. In some extreme cases a complete shutdown of the federal government has been forced due to the impasse, such as in 1995 when Clinton was unable to work with an obstinate Republican Congress.[1] While Reagan was able to use his co-operation with House Democrats to great effect in pushing through policy and gaining re-election.[2] Clinton was re-elected by showing himself as the only one prepared to compromise compared to the dogmatic Republicans, merely continuing the Partisan mode of campaigning the Proposition hopes would end through divided government.[3] [1] ‘1995-96 Government Shutdown’, Slaying the Dragon of Debt, http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/governmentshutdown.html [2] Faler, Brian, ‘Reagan’s Tax Increases Have Democrats Recalling Republican Hero’, Bloomberg, 22 July 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-i... [3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Lessons from the great government shutdown of 1995-96’, The Washington Post, 25 February 2011, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/lessons_from_the_g...
Effect on democratic participation

It is Single-Party Government that fails to represent the interest of Americans. By subscribing to just one view of what makes good policy, government risks simply taking into account little over half the electorate (and under half the population, giving how low voter turnout usually is in American Elections[1]) when taking actions that effect all. By taking into account the wants and aims of both parties, the best policy that can carry the support of the broad cross-section of society will be implemented, preventing disillusionment with unrepresentative, overtly ideological government. [1] Infoplease, ‘National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010’, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Existing checks and balances

As noted earlier, compromises in Congress can be pre-arranged in order to satisfy the aims of the Executive if both are controlled by the same party, reducing the amount of check and balance from Congress. The party in control of Congress also form majorities on Departmental Committees making effective scrutiny conditional upon whether or not government is divided. The last time a supermajority in the Senate was achieved along party lines was during the 95th Congress of 1977-79 when the Democrats had 61 seats. Since then no party has achieved this yet the majority party has still have been able to use the influence they have to work in conjunction with their President’s agenda. Only by having split control can there be a real check and balance. The Supreme Court can be quite partisan with Justices reading the law in order to fit their own ideological biases.[1] A seen a number of times during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the largely Republican appointed Court made controversial decisions in favour of the President and Republicans on Abortion and Affirmative Action, undermining the idea of the Court as a check on government power.      [1] Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Judicial Partisanship Awards’, The Washington independent, 31 July 2008, http://washingtonindependent.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards
Growing partisanship

The reason why a febrile atmosphere has emerged in recent years is because both red and blue single-party governments have made unpopular decisions without the necessary checks being place upon it. This has made people disenchanted with the political system and made them think that it is only looks out for ideological elites, causing a backlash in the form of the Tea Party and Occupy movements.[1] Divided Government combats this by helping to re-establish consensus between the parties over what is best for America, ensuring that policies have the consent of a majority of people, thus preventing the overtly ideological backlashes seen recently. [1] Miles, Chris, ‘What the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Have in Common’, policymic, http://www.policymic.com/articles/1916/what-the-tea-party-and-occupy-wal...
Parties as coalitions

The parties may be broad churches with many mechanisms in place to form the ‘best policy’ but that can still lead to flaws under a single-party government. It is easy for one wing to dominate a party, as has been seen recently with the dominance of the Tea Party within the Republican Party. Primaries are a symptom of this, with the views of grass roots being expressed in results that do not conform to the views of a majority of voters.    This can lead to parties standing and governing on a platform that is unrepresentative of the aims of many Americans. Under Single-Party Government, there is little scope for moderating highly ideological government, thus underlining the need for divided government.
Checks and balances

By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies. Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda with little oversight from a legislative branch that is largely in agreement with the policy. One need only look to authoritarian governments the world over to see that governments with too much power are likely to abuse that power. Divided Government provides a check on the executive, preventing agendas to be pushed through, allowing for compromise to be made between the two major parties, ensuring that the best possible policy for Americans is enacted. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.”[1] [1] Franklin, Benjamin, Writings, ‘III. On the Legislative Branch.’ 10:55 – 60, 1789,  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch12s25.html
Constitutional imperative

The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”[1] This principle ensures that power is divided, facilitating greater dialogue between the branches and between the two houses of Congress which seeks to compromise with each other to provide the best possible expression of Congress’ will. Such a need for compromise between the branches lends itself to having control of the two elected branches being spilt between two parties necessitating compromise as opposed to single party control of both houses, where compromise can be pre-arranged to fit the aims of the executive. Therefore, Divided Government is an extra requirement to government, ensuring that powers are not concentrated to the detriment of Americans. [1] Madison, James, ‘The Federalist No.51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’, Independent Journal, 6 February 1788, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
How Congress Works

Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law.[1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law.[2] This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people.    [1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196 [2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’, http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/reconciliation_process.htm
Effect on the structure of the main political parties

Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing for the good of all Americans. As a result the greatest American achievements have come when there has been broad bipartisan consensus.[1] There is also a Partisan consideration to seeking divided Government. The more successful two-term Presidents of recent times, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, governed with Congress partly or completely controlled by the opposition party.[2] They were able to work with the opposition to pursue the best policy, aiding their re-election hopes by pitching themselves as seeking to compromise, in line with the aspirations of voters, who on the whole prefer divided government in order to promote mature co-operation between the parties.     [1] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc [2] ‘Divided Government’ Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government accessed 30/1/12
Effect on democratic participation

Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them. The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it to be even partly enacted. It is notable that the majority of legislation originates from Congress when government is divided rather than from the President. This is despite the president being the one with the nationwide mandate.[1] Single Party Government counters this by ensuring that policies clearly presented to and chosen by the electorate are enacted without having to countenance the opinions of an opposition whose policies have just been discredited by the electorate, Thus ensuring that government is responsive to the aims and wishes of the people. [1] Jones, Charles O., The Presidency in a Separated System, The Brookings Institution, 1994, p.222