TV or Not TV by Ronald L. Goldfarb

Author:Ronald L. Goldfarb [Goldfarb, Ronald L.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Law, Courts, Performing Arts, Television, General, Social Science, Media Studies
ISBN: 9780814731314
Google: EvQTCgAAQBAJ
Publisher: NYU Press
Published: 2000-01-15T05:23:19+00:00

Ordinarily, the problem which results when jurors talk with others about a case despite admonitions not to do so may not be too great. First, the temptation of the outsider to force the conversation is not too high when he knows little or nothing to begin with, so the admonition may not be too often ignored. Second, both parties are likely to accept the premise that the opinion of the one who is there is probably more valid. When both are “there,” however, the equation changes dramatically, and it is much harder for the one who must reach the actual verdict to defend his or her opinion. It is, therefore, much more subject to undue influence.

A 1991 survey conducted in New York State supported this suspicion.44 When five hundred randomly chosen voters were asked over the telephone “how likely they would be to testify in court if they were a victim of crime and learned that the trial would be videotaped for broadcast on the evening news,” virtually half (48 percent) were less willing to testify. Fewer respondents (43 percent) said they would be as willing to testify. Only 10 percent of those surveyed responded that they would be more willing to testify. The researchers concluded that “for every person who would be more willing to testify when cameras are in the courtroom, five people would be less willing to come forward and testify . . . or four out of ten potential victims . . . will be less willing to testify in a criminal case.”

As noted earlier, Court TV’s 1992 informal survey focusing on judges’ reactions to cameras in the courtroom concluded that the cameras did not impede the judicial process; indeed, 60 percent of the judges thought Court TV’s camera “helped convey the events of the trial in a way that contributed to public understanding of the legal system.”45 And the Federal Judicial Center’s questionnaires and telephone interviews of judges and attorneys regarding cameras in the courtroom (during the period from July 1, 1991, to June 30, 1993) concluded that judges’ attitudes toward electronic media improved over time. Both judges and attorneys reported witnessing little effect of cameras on trial participants. On the basis of this study, the research project staff recommended the authorization of the use of cameras nationwide in civil proceedings, subject to certain guidelines. This study had limitations: only perceived effects on courtroom participants were measured; only civil proceedings were covered; the sample was voluntary, not random; and most judges had prior experience with media coverage in their courtroom.46

The second type of research involves the case study. This is an examination of the impact of television on a single trial. The problem with this mode of analysis, from the perspective of policy-makers, is its lack of generalizability. Simply because one trial was or was not conducted fairly with camera coverage does not necessarily mean that other trials with other participants would lead to the same results. One doctoral dissertation concluded that “traditional speculation as to possible disruption to the judicial process by courtroom cameras appears to be unwarranted.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.