Prompt: In some countries, criminal trials are shown on TV for the public. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Some people opine that investigations of some offenders need to be shown on TV. Although it can affect children's development adversely it is likely to dissuade the population from committing the crime. In my opinion, it is more beneficial to telecast criminal trials despite the negative effects. Ċ On one hand, every kind of age groups can access TV easily. Even children are more familiar with new technologies and they can easily discover every channel. That's why those trials, seeing criminals, can demotivate children and reveal bad behaviours among them. Moreover, kids are likely to imitate characters on the TV. Watching those trials can augment the number of kids who are prone to violence. For instance, every kid chooses their heroes among cartoons, so on TV. Therefore, it might be risky for kids in development. Ċ On the other hand, firstly, tough life conditions are likely to drag people into crime. Even most innocent ones can give in to temptation. Secondly, people need to see the shame on suspects face and need to understand the nonsense of their ideas. For instance, due to the fact that many spectators of ''La Casa de Papel'' are dreaming to rob a bank, we can clearly see the result of telecasting trials will be effective. In addition, with those broadcasts; the force of the judicial system and police forces can show up among the population. That's why to avoid new crimes and criminals those trials can be beneficial. Ċ To sum up, in order to give a different perspective to the public, TV is publishing these trials. Even though it can damage children's development, the population, more precisely potential criminals can hesitate from committing crimes. I think that it could change public opinion and efface the instability of the judicial system.