Comments by "Sheila Smith" (@SheilaSmith-z8g) on "COURT TV" channel.

I don't agree. The public has NO right to view a broadcasted trial. If a person wants to view a trial, attend the trial. The more opportunity for the jury to be exposed to information outside the court room, the higher the risk of court, legal contamination. We want many things we have no right to receive.
9
OkLikeWhatever Please state why individuals living states away from a trial have a "right," to view a trial on TV, rather than in person. Keep in mind in your answer that a human "right," has a definition....and curiosity, entertainment, or excitement is not part of the definition. Please explain your claim of a "right."
4
@anotherfishinthesea8660 Make an argument in favor of public broadcast of trials. You offered NOTHING except a claim that broadcasting was correct. Hey buddy, newsflash, a claim is NOT evidence
2
When jurors are calm and follow the evidence and not prosecutors or defense story telling, they will decide corectly......unlike O.J or Casey Anthony.
2
@yvont3188: I dont know if what you said is true, but..... Disturbing to me is our society cares more about the guilty being imprisoned, than it does that the innocent are not incarcerated. There should be at least equal concern for both, but there isn't. Ever notice the size of the crowd at a prison when an innocent person is released after 25 years in prison. By contrast, look at the size of the screaming crowd ( calling for conviction) prior to trial. It speaks to what matters to the majority. No "transpariency" because the judge wont allow cameras in court? How is a person having no connection to the victim or the suspect entitled to view a broadcasted trial. Notice all the reasons stated by those who favor a trial's broadcast.....and never a reason for why it might not be a good. Good ruling by the judge.
2
Her only actual delusion has been how wonderful, beautiful and chosen she is. She knows and we know all the stories about Jesus are false.
1
@selenacampbell576 So your answer to my request, my question on a "right," for the gereral public to view the trial by telecast is: 1. Gull voted for cameras in the court room, then ruled ( judges don't vote) and 2. The judge is biased? Well, you apparently can't answer the question of "a right," and the rest of your claim of the judge's actions are behavior you don't like. BTW: There is nothing in law that allows cameras in court.....for GOOD reason. Selena, the whole point of my comment is to invite those in favor of cameras to consider how cameras might actually harm the process of a trial, and in that same sense harm the public interests. No, public funding for trials serves the interest of justice for the defendant....not to fund reality T.V, or public interest, or entertainment. If any one of the public WANT to see, go to the trial. The more avenues of information released, the greater an opportunity for jury contamination. Your curiosity should never be of equal or greater value, than justice for the defendant....whether he/she is found guilty or acquitted. I suggest you know somthing about law, how courts operate, why our systems are designed as they are. Perhaps consider what was the purpose of our U.S Constitution....It's the rights of the individual, not the collective.
1
@ladykay-lh7wn You confuse public "concern," for public, "curiosity." What's the concern? If the accused is acquitted will he be released into your neighborhood? Put your family at risk? Is the accused a relative of yours? Are the victims relatives of yours? All those who participate and attend the trial (including media) are witnesses to the court proceedings. There will be reports on the trial to satisfy your "concerns," just not to the extent to satisfy your, "curiosity." No, Kay, the integrity of a trial out-weights your "concerns;" the rights of the accused, the victims and the families are primary, not the desires of the public to watch. Spend a few moments considering HOW public broadcasts are not in the best interest of anyone, what the risks to justice there are. Let's be honest, humans are masters at rationalizing what they want. Humans enjoy a good show.
1
Does the "motive," of the judge ruling against a public broadcast, matter? No. What matters is whether public broadcasts can be harmful to a trial? Although jurors agree to base all opinions on the trial only, the more opportunities of exposure to outside news/info, the greater the chance of a contaminated trial. And of course Court TV wants a public broadcast, and would make the argument of need for "transparency." If a person has NO direct relationship to the victim or the perpetrator, he/she is NOT entitled to transparency. If related, attend the trial. Peeping Toms, are not entitled to see the interior of a house. At least we should be questioning if there is any potential harm in public court broadcasts. Humans are pros at justifying, rationalizing their desires.
1