Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 783

Bringing Cameras into Federal Courts

Argument in favor

Allowing the broadcast of proceedings in federal courts would increase knowledge and interest in the judicial process. A more transparent courtroom guarantees the right to a public trial.

Vyrena's Opinion
···
08/29/2016
Checks and balances people! We have a right to monitor our officials and the system at large. Federal courts hold great power and must be held accountable.
Like (11)
Follow
Share
AndrewGVN's Opinion
···
10/13/2015
It's the modern era now. There should be digital photographs of court cases to have a more accurate account of previous trials.
Like (10)
Follow
Share
Curmudgeon's Opinion
···
07/03/2015
We need the photographic record anyway as it allows review of body language that is one more way to reveal guilt.
Like (9)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Bringing cameras into courtrooms could affect the way that witnesses, judges, jurors, and prosecutors behave. It also raises the potential to publicly expose / endanger vulnerable witnesses and jurors.

Kristyna 's Opinion
···
05/19/2016
While I agree that there needs to be more transpacy with some of the decisions that are being made. But having the trail filmed will create the atmosphere that everyone who attends those trails needs to put on a show. Although the only court cases I feel should be recorded should be the Supreme Court since what it decided there would be come apart of the law of the land
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Alejandro 's Opinion
···
08/29/2016
I don't know, don't really find a problem with cameras in the courtroom. Although!!!, There should be cameras & brodcasts of Meetings of Congress, etc. As when Bush & all advisors decided to go into war in Iraq or when they granted Bush the right to do what he wants, which his plan was to go to war. Documentation, as cameras, of all that & brodcast. This is asupposed Democracy no!? Seems like a
Like (3)
Follow
Share
ToxGuy's Opinion
···
07/16/2016
Yes, because we can totally trust the media not to bastardize the whole event in order to sell a paper.
Like (2)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedMarch 18th, 2015
    Checks and balances people! We have a right to monitor our officials and the system at large. Federal courts hold great power and must be held accountable.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    While I agree that there needs to be more transpacy with some of the decisions that are being made. But having the trail filmed will create the atmosphere that everyone who attends those trails needs to put on a show. Although the only court cases I feel should be recorded should be the Supreme Court since what it decided there would be come apart of the law of the land
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    It's the modern era now. There should be digital photographs of court cases to have a more accurate account of previous trials.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    We need the photographic record anyway as it allows review of body language that is one more way to reveal guilt.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Read up on prosecutorial abuses. Transparency almost all ways keeps things more honest.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    As long as jurors and witnesses' identities are protected. Obscured is not enough - no likeness of them should be permitted to be filmed.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    As long as when something that may endanger a witness or private citizens. I think it would be good to see how the court system especially here in NC is almost an assembly line for the poor in this county. I have had attorneys actually tell me that you have no issues because you are white make 6 figures and that if I were poor white or black it be a different story. Typical good ole boys club.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Transparency is always a good thing! The protections within the bill appear to be well thought out...
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't know, don't really find a problem with cameras in the courtroom. Although!!!, There should be cameras & brodcasts of Meetings of Congress, etc. As when Bush & all advisors decided to go into war in Iraq or when they granted Bush the right to do what he wants, which his plan was to go to war. Documentation, as cameras, of all that & brodcast. This is asupposed Democracy no!? Seems like a
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course! Increasing the action of broadcasting in both federal and state trials will ensure the ability that altercation is civilized, and constitutional matter. Furthermore, if this proposal were to be implemented it would result in an affordable costing action of only five million dollars which may seem harshly priced but in reality it's a affordable implementation on the tax payers expense and the funding of the federal government as well. Additionally, this proposal exemplifies that technological resources incorporating broadcasting positively influence the law aspect in the United States Courts. The attempt to make a justification that broadcasting federal or state trails would violate the civil liberties and individual rights of the prosecution, defense, jury, witness, judge, etc is simply irrelevant, absurd and clearly a incorrect claim. The Primary source document to support this manner originates for those that have read the significance of this bill in the details column (No Offense). As explicitly stated if our colleagues in local state government or federal courts feel that broadcasting may Infringe ones rights they may quote "A judge could also obscure the face and voice of a witness if there is a good reason to believe that broadcasting their features may threaten": 1. The witnesses Safety. 2.The security of the court. 3. The integrity of ongoing or future law enforcement operations. 4. The Interest Of justice To reiterate, As I quickly glance at this proposal by the House of Representatives I see a low costing implementation to benefit the civil arguments occurring in both state and federal trials and MOST IMPORTANTLY TO ESNURE THAT THE COURTS AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE TRIAL UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AS WELL! Lastly, Attorneys will still have the authority to declare and prohibit the invasion of privacy exploiting ones individual rights by quote "S. 405 would also prohibit the broadcasting of conferences between attorneys and their clients". Ratifying this proposal or even promoting it without laws passed seems evident as a respect to the rule of law. Although, to veto this proposal would exemplify incompetence on our nations behalf demonizing the RULE OF LAW and POOR- JUDGEMENT AS WELL. It seems like a reasonable request to properly monitor altercation in a civilized manner not obstructing ones individual rights/civil liberties and should for you as well if you truly value that ALL UPHOLD THE LAW AND CONDUCT CIVILIZED ARGUMENTS. It's time we utilize our modern technological resources to ensure civilized law arguments and practices. Thank you for your time.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, because we can totally trust the media not to bastardize the whole event in order to sell a paper.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    As long as the vulnerable parties have the ability to block or obscure their place in the public view, I do not see compelling reasons to keep cameras out. Although, even though the cost is small, additional court cost burdens could be enough just to keep saying no. But then congress would just burn more time and money later to bring up a slightly different bill later.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We don't need actors in court rooms.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Accountability. If you believe what you say, and it backs your stance; own it.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Since the Constitution REQUIRES trial by jury in nearly all cases, having cameras in the court would be a great way to assure that the judges do not interfere. In the American judicial system under the Constitution, judges are just there to make sure the jury can hear the case, nothing more. This will help to get judges in line, no matter which end of the political spectrum they are on.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill contains all of the safeguards that opponents are whining about. Also, judges have the right to decide whether or not to allow cameras into the courtroom, they are not being forced to do so.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    The point of the federal courts is that they are detached from public opinion.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Maybe some of our judges would behave better and give out more appropriate sentences.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Cameras should not be in court as the innocent needs protection. A picture of the guilty can be approved in the case of a guilty verdict.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Legal proceedings are not REALITY TV OR ENTERTAINMENT. This is intrusive & unnecessary..
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE