There is now talk of allowing cameras in courts.

Do you think this is a good idea?

Although it may be interesting I personally don't feel it is something that is necessary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4011829.stm

I think it's good that we have access to trials and know what is going on in courts, but i think it could be used in a bad way, and could have negative outcomes.... so I don't know.

What benefits would having Camera's in the Court Room be?

Do you mean video cameras or photographic cameras?

Originally posted by J-Blaze
What benefits would having Camera's in the Court Room be?

In such cases as paedafiles (probabl spel wrong)
It can be ver good, because if his person does ge off scot free (tthe mos likelness is that he would have done something had he been in the dock) then you know what this person looks like.

i certainnly would not want my kid anywhere near somepeople (not saying i have kids)

i can obviously see the negative points regards this, ie witnesses not having full confidentiality

But they do it in america (ooooo i hate them words) and they dont seem to have any problems with it

It's a terrible idea that is an invasion of the privacy of all parties, including the victims and the innocents. It always surprises me that we're alloweed to know anything aabout what goes on in court, including the names, and courtroom art.

On another note, surely it would be distracting having all those clicks and flashes going?

judge judy! wish we had someone like her

Originally posted by noseyrosie
.

On another note, surely it would be distracting having all those clicks and flashes going?

i believe it is on about camcorders!! no clicks or flashes

Originally posted by Robbie_Lovin
In such cases as paedafiles (probabl spel wrong)
It can be ver good, because if his person does ge off scot free (tthe mos likelness is that he would have done something had he been in the dock) then you know what this person looks like.


I know the mere mention of paedophiles makes people hysterical, but what if the man who "get's off scott free" is innocent?? Imagine it's your husband or brother that's been wrongly accused, and their face is plastered all over the telly, before vigilanties like yourself get involved. Would that be fair either?

I'm not sticking up for paedophiles, maybe they deserve to have their details circulated, I don't know. But to televise trials before the person is proved guilty is nonsense.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
I know the mere mention of paedophiles makes people hysterical, but what if the man who "get's off scott free" is innocent?? Imagine it's your husband or brother that's been wrongly accused, and their face is plastered all over the telly, before vigilanties like yourself get involved. Would that be fair either?

I'm not sticking up for paedophiles, maybe they deserve to have their details circulated, I don't know. But to televise trials before the person is proved guilty is nonsense.

i believe most people who get took to court for child abuse must have some pretty decent evidence, and would not be on the back of a wim, yes some of these people do get off, but whose to say they are innocent!

People know to keep there kids away from these people for future reference then.

i do see your point RE vigilante groups, but i don't think there would be that many out baying for blood to be honest!