Media Coverage and the Right to a Fair Trial

In her written statement last November 9 2005, Barbara E. Bergman, the President of the National tie of Criminal excuse Lawyers, aptly stated in behalf of the NACDL that the fundamental stretch out of every illegal visitation is not to entertain, nor to educate, but to administer justice1.The strife regarding whether media coverage of criminal auditions is detrimental to a elegant trial or not is hotly debated and difficult to balance. Even high caliber lawyers squander not reached a general consensus about the issue. The tension in the midst of the pros and cons of the express subject is still being balanced every time assist of litigation is on going. Questions arising from this issue abstruse How much of the media be allowed? result it be helpful to let the media cover every trial of a fussy case from start to finish?What about the parties involved? Does ratiocination to permit the media or not be the sole right of the judge, or is it the right of all the parties i nvolved, including the defendant? These ar but some of the outstanding components that embody the whole subject. The apprehension is that, too much populaceity cogency affect the trials fairness. The unrestrained freedom given might be used or manipulated to influence fair and just decisions on the parts of the jury and the judge.This paper covers the different views pertaining to media coverage/publicity of a trial. What argon the advantages and disadvantages when media coverage is allowed? What are the effects negative or affirmative of the media to a fair trial?The Pros of PublicityArguments for media coverage inside the royal courtroom are solid and convincing. As cited by Bergman in her written testimony, it promotes civic sentience raises government accountability, and enhances legal professionalism2. Bergman was right when she pointed these three positive results of opening the court to the public via media reporting. A prying press, in this case, has become and is indeed a friend and complimentary to the justice system. It exposes everything. When thither is malpractice on the side of the police, the prosecutors, and the judges, the media is ancillary and contributory in the exacting of fairness to the opposite side3.It is also gentle to the public, especially when a particular case is controversial involving celebrities or notorious personalities. The public whose curiosity have made them a part of the trial must be given the chance to participate, or else, mis believe to formula will take place among people in general, as a result. Media coverage is of great assistance in this area.It prevents closed door minutes and subjects people of authority to the scrutiny of the public and thus avoid go on corruptions which could otherwisewise happen when media is banned from the deliberations. Another plus of the coverage of criminal trials is that it promotes respect to the justice system. It alleviates the mystery of secrecy in closed insul ated proceeding. When there is no care on the part of those involved in execution justice inside hearings and open trial is rather encouraged, public trust heightens, and thus deference to whatever outcomes may it be comporting to the general fantasy of the public or not.Because there is also that damning stigma to the so-called pretrial publicity (an irony inherent to media coverage), open trial dispels this. The outcome result that oftentimes reverses the guilty verdict of the public restores the already smeared write up of the criminal defendant. When charges are dismissed, and the premature guilty judgment is eventually prove wrong, the supposed criminal is vindicated before the watching community.Last point in favor of media involvement, is the benefit that the government, the people, and jurisprudence itself, obtain in this process. Insights to the already sagely crafted laws are contemplated and possible or potential modification of existing laws is considered. As Bar bara E. Bergman has stated in her testimony, Court TV must be impute for its considerable contributions in all of these areas4.The Cons of Media CoverageThe arguments against media involvement in juridic processes are equally convincing. There are also disadvantages to unrestrained media meddling. One primary concern is its negative effects to the parties involved in a particular litigation. The conspicuous presence of cameras inside the courtroom will affect the behaviors of the important players of a specific case.It will thus weaken the procedure or the fair administration of justice5. Because lawyers, defendants, jurors, and judges, and witnesses are aware that they are being watched, in this kind of scenario, their tendency is to act unnaturally in other words, they may act hypocritically, and this will be to the detriment of fair judicial process. In the O.J. Simpson case, there were instances when crucial witnesses withheld their testimonies because of fear that they are b eing watched by the public6.If the jurors had been made aware beforehand that the case they were handling would be televised and publicized, the boilersuit verdict would definitely be affected. Concern for the publics popular opinion of whatever the eventual decisions they will ever come up regarding the future(a) of the defendant, will or may get into the deliberations process.ConclusionThe important thing in the whole scenario of judicial procedures everywhere is striking a balance between the pros and the cons of media involvement. First, of course is the fairness that begins in whose authority it is to say yes or no to the media. As the NACDL has forged and is now binding in the courts of America, all parties involved in the case Judge, Prosecutors, Defendants, etc. have to be asked. Everyone must be given the freedom to exercise his/her right. Is it true that, because the eyes of the general public are watching a particular case, it thus precludes a fair trial?Does presence of cameras in the court demean and disrupt the proceedings? Are the participants in the hearing process judges, attorneys, jurors, and witnesses get affected negatively, and wherefore adjust their behavior because they are conscious that they are being watched? No one knows for sure whether these are true or not. They may be in many cases, and again, maybe not. The important thing is to strike a balance in both sides and apply what is necessary to secure collect process of law. Remember, the fundamental issue in every criminal trial is the administration of justice, not entertainment nor to educate.Works CitedBergman, Barbara. 2005. Cameras in the Courtroom. National Association of Defense Criminal Lawyers accessed on April 28, 2007 in. http//judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1672&wit_id=4801.Goldfarb, Ronald. The Trial of the coke Accessed on April 28, 2007I Reiner, Cameras Keep justice System in Focus, The National Law Journal, October 23, 1995, p. A23. in Goldfarb, Ron ald. The Trial of the ampere-second Accessed on April 28, 2007Cameras in the Courtroom. 2005 National Association of Defense Criminal Lawyers in http//judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1672&wit_id=4801.Ibid. Goldfarb, Ronald. The Trial of the Century. Accessed in http//www.cosmos-club.org/web/journals/1998/goldfarb.html http//judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1672&wit_id=4801. Ibid. I Reiner, Cameras Keep arbitrator System in Focus, The National Law Journal, October 23, 1995, p. A23. in Goldfarb, Ronald. The Trial of the Century Accessed on April 28, 2007 in http//www.cosmos-club.org/web/journals/1998/goldfarb.htmlhttp//www.cosmos-club.org/web/journals/1998/goldfarb.html.