Hot, raging, arguments about whether TV cameras should be allowed in courtrooms have been in effect since the O.J. Simpson trial. A numerous amount of people, including judges, have their own take on this subject. After petitions upon petitions and trials after trials, we as a country have come a long way from where we started. As of now all 50 states allow TV coverage in courts and 37 allow TV cameras in criminal proceedings. Now the humungous fight of convincing the federal courts to allow electronic coverage of high profile trials is before the valiant people who fight to get cameras into courtrooms. There are many pros and cons to allowing cameras into courtrooms, all of which will be explained in the near future.
With all the technological advances that we have accomplished, it only makes sense to use what we have to our advantage. Putting TV cameras in courtrooms would utilize all the capabilities of the media to televise important trials from beginning to end to give the public the chance to watch something that is of importance to them. Courtrooms are limited to a 60-80-person capacity. Some people cannot make it to a trial; therefore, production of any trial will aid the public by giving them a firsthand opportunity to view a trial rather than to rely on a secondhand opinion by a reporter. With a camera in the courtroom anybody will be able to see for themselves what actually went on in the courtroom instead of reading what happened later. With cameras in the courtrooms the public will gain more and more confidence in our judicial system because they would be able to see it firsthand. .
Judges can ban cameras from their courtrooms at their own discretion as long as their reason is constitutional. Most judges now are opposed to allowing cameras in their courtrooms. Some say that it violates the defendants right to a fair trial; some would just prefer not to have any cameras in a high-profile trial.