Court Proceedings on Camera
All court proceedings are matters of public records. Where the public is allowed; the media cannot be denied access. The media inside the courtroom has the right to record the proceedings for the information of the public.
However, where the defendant’s right to a fair trial is in question, as in juvenile and sexual assault cases, the court has the ground to close the courtroom from the media. To protect the rights of the parties and dignity of the proceedings, the court may promulgate rules and regulations and see to it that the media does not distract the systematic disposition of cases.
Electronic media coverage is a noteworthy development accessible to all judicial systems. Other international courts allow court proceeding to be on camera while other jurisdictions are still experimenting on the phenomenon.
The degree of tolerance on media cameras differs from state to state. Other states are liberal while others are strictly regulatory. The possibility of court distraction is controlled by appropriate rules and guidelines and television coverage has shown to have conjured the dignity of judicial proceedings.
Technology has decimated the hazard of disruption of trial processes. With the proper regulation of media presence in courtroom, the concern for psychological effect on the participants has been dispelled. Evidences prove that the perceptions of those who have personally experience electronic media coverage are more positive than those who have not experienced the same.
It has been argued that electronic media coverage violates other constitutionally protected rights of party-litigants. It could be prejudicial to the interest of defendants under the due process clause and results in unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of other participants. To televise the jury while in the performance of duty could expose them to possible risk.
However, under the principle of open justice; the right to privacy must give way to effect a fair administration of justice. Under the balancing of interest rule, public interest carries weight greater than right to privacy. Recent development has resolved the issue of importance among rights through the imposition of restrictions and prohibitions.
It has become discretionary on the court whether to prohibited media coverage during jury selection process. The objective in allowing media coverage with cameras is to educate the people and acquaint the public to judicial proceedings. Unfortunately however, such goal is far from realization. Electronic coverage only sensationalizes cases and distorts the orderly administration of justice. The cost outweighs the benefit.
