In eleven pages the addition of cameras in the courtroom is assessed according to their ethical and legal implications with a consideration of purpose from supporting and opposing sides. Ten sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: LM1_TLCCrtCm.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
the country to show in intricate detail just how the process is achieved. After all, both the public and the system itself stand to learn quite a bit from
televised trials (Rosenberg, 1997). From a taxpayers point of view, people have every right to know what is happening inside the very courtrooms their tax dollars furnish. Supporters
of cameras contend that each citizen should have the option of seeing just what their money is paying for, as well as be privy to every minute detail that may
not otherwise make it into a reporters account of the trial (Barnes, 1995). However, the question that comes immediately to the minds of many critics when the issue of
courtroom cameras is broached, is what actual purpose do they serve by being there? II. ETHICS VERSUS INFORMATION The presence of television
cameras in todays courtrooms presents quite a dichotomy with regard to the legal and ethical ramifications surrounding the hotly debated issue. Opponents of such allowances claim there exists a
multitude of problems stemming from the media having access inside the courtroom, while proponents say it is every citizens right to see what is going on in the present judicial
system. No matter which way ones opinion may stand, the fact remains that cameras in the courtroom have created an unprecedented obstacle that has both sides debating whether the
final outcome of any given trial will be influenced one way or another. In the entire world, the country having by far the
most experience with courtroom cameras is the United States. The early 1990s reflected a trend that saw forty-five states permitting the use of courtroom cameras both experimentally and permanently.