Should cases and trials be televised

With regards to the debate on Vincent Browne tonight (Sept 11 2012), Should cases and trials be televised? Please vote and give your reason as to why you think they should/should'nt/certain cases only ?

El Weirdo

No.

It's supposed to be justice being served, not entertainment for the masses like fucking X-Factor.

enfant terrible

Yes for entertainment purposes like in the US.

eth0

No there's enough boring shoite on telly already. Only way I'd be in favour is if it displaced big brother

I believe that certain cases should be televised. Cases of Treason (Financial, Political, etc). Obviously though i wouldn't like for it to take up too much tv space and if it were to go ahead it should on a dedicated channel or red button option (which Saorview don't have at this point in time).

I believe for the reason that the bankers owe the people of this country an explanation and because every Irish citizen wont fit in the courtroom that they should be given the right to view it on television. Only certain cases mind i wouldnt agree with murder cases etc as it would probably be insensitive to the victims families

oppenheimer1

If it meant we got more "Celebrity solicitors" of the Gerard Keane ilk, then no, I'd be all against it.

Wacker The Attacker

Who pays for it?

Wacker The Attacker

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Who pays for it?

Would it cost alot to set up camera's in the courthouse?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If it meant we got more "Celebrity solicitors" of the Gerard Keane ilk, then no, I'd be all against it.

Ok but Gerard Keane is a 'celebrity solicitor' because he represents U2 and the likes and is married to/going out with Michael Flatley's ex is he not?

I think if it is broadcasted in a responsible manner rather then an Americanised manner then i see know reason why it wouldn't go off successfully and viewers would get an interesting insight into the legal process and make up their own mind on its strengths and weaknesses etc.

I mean it says an awful lot about society though if we are worried about solicitors/judges becoming celebrities based on a televised court case. I would have to worry about those who would glorify them in all honesty.

Wacker The Attacker

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it cost alot to set up camera's in the courthouse?



Ok but Gerard Keane is a 'celebrity solicitor' because he represents U2 and the likes and is married to/going out with Michael Flatley's ex is he not?

I think if it is broadcasted in a responsible manner rather then an Americanised manner then i see know reason why it wouldn't go off successfully and viewers would get an interesting insight into the legal process and make up their own mind on its strengths and weaknesses etc.

I mean it says an awful lot about society though if we are worried about solicitors/judges becoming celebrities based on a televised court case. I would have to worry about those who would glorify them in all honesty.

Isnt it more involved than simply setting up cameras

Wacker The Attacker

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Isnt it more involved than simply setting up cameras

Well i suppose it could be the same as it currently is to set cameras up in the dail. Yes i suppose it goes without saying also there would be a team there to ensure production goes to plan

Wacker The Attacker

Deleted User wrote: »

Well i suppose it could be the same as it currently is to set cameras up in the dail. Yes i suppose it goes without saying also there would be a team there to ensure production goes to plan

How does one determine which court cases are covered considering the number of cases heard?

Senna

Of course trials should be televised, then we can text in to vote if they're innocent or guilty.

Colmustard

El Weirdo wrote: »

No.

It's supposed to be justice being served, not entertainment for the masses like fucking X-Factor.

Agreed

But LOL I can imagine that programme, a telephone voting jury while the defendant is defended by Louis Walsh and Simon would be the judge.

To me those high profile American cases always seem like soviet era showtrials.

Nobody does better show trials better then the USA. Another case against televising justice or allowing cameras in a court room was that Norwegian murdering moron Breivik.

RubyRoss

I'd be more in favour of bringing back the stocks. Much more entertaining.

Chucken

El Weirdo wrote: »

No.

It's supposed to be justice being served, not entertainment for the masses like fucking X-Factor.

...true

Wacker The Attacker

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

How does one determine which court cases are covered considering the number of cases heard?

That could be a tricky one in fairness because i dont agree they should cover all cases. It could set a precedent that would over expose it to tv so perhaps it should only be certain cases such as for example if any Banker/Politician goes on trial for corruption. (perhaps the latter and maybe even former being unlikely in our lifetime)

Then you have the costs of setting up and removing the equipment for the duration of the trial.

If there is downsides to this it is really cost to the taxpayer as you suggest. The principle of the idea im not really against tbh but in this country of course RTE would pay well over the odds to broadcast it and us license payers would get rode for the costs.

Kraftwerk91

El Weirdo wrote: »

No.

It's supposed to be justice being served, not entertainment for the masses like f[SIZE="2"]u[/SIZE]cking X-Factor.

^this

RubyRoss

RubyRoss wrote: »

I'd be more in favour of bringing back the stocks. Much more entertaining.

Ahhh yes that is definitely one tradition that should never have been abolished Too many human rights protesters would object to it though...damn them anyway :mad: