Cameras In the Courtrooms have been known to give an artificial element of what is really going on in the Courtroom, some parties tend to act differently when the cameras are rolling, cameras should be used with discretion while in the Courtroom.(Chance,1995)
Informing the Public:
Even though the public wants to be informed cameras should use discretion while in the courtroom. Informing the public can be a very risky business, especially where credibility is concerned. “TV cameras in the courtroom leads to a cultural trivialization of such proceedings, reducing our judicial process to the level of petty reality shows.” We also find that cable TV play a large part in how the judicial system has allowed the media to weave their way into the courtroom. Judge Jane Marum Roush, of Fairfax County Va. was asked by several TV reporters if they could take still photos of a court case in which an 18 year old was accused of a vicious killing, Judge Roush declined by stating…  “The public’s right to know” [is] a “right” that is not enunciated in the constitution, she also stated that these cameras could possibly have effects on the jurors. Not more than four states over Houston Prosecutors contend that a camera could corrupt jury deliberations, inhibiting some jurors, and bringing out the exhibitionist in others if the cameras were in the courtroom. Many feel that by televising trials would make the media and reporters strive to be more accurate in their reporting, because bad credibility could disrupt someone’s life. The national center of state courts have reported that media coverage may be only permitted on a written order of a Judge, this Judge at his own discretion may permit , refuse, limit, or terminate media coverage Citizens Rights:
Media in the courtroom should have a limit on how far they can go, when and if they are allowed into certain court cases, media cameras have been...