Into the Lens

The editorial pro/con in USA Today today tackled the issue of whether cameras should be allowed in federal courtrooms. Arguing the "yes" side, predictably is the paper, while Judge Jan E. DuBois of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania argues "no." I've never been a fan of cameras in the courtroom, but I do admit enjoying the occasional audio from the Supreme Court or a Ninth Circuit on video. Given the mundane stuff that goes on in court most days, I can't imagine that lots of proceedings would ever get put on the tube. But still, I find a couple of the paper's assertions troubling, at best:

The world is witnessing an intense drama as the trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein unfolds live on television. People can tune in on TV or watch at their computers, via the Internet.

But if Saddam were on trial in a federal court in the USA, the viewing public would be shut out.

Sorry, that's just false. Saddam's trial (assuming no extra-Constitutional shenanigans by Dubya and crew) would be public and no doubt well covered by the press. The physical limitations of the courtroom would keep some folks from attending, but to say the public would be "shut out" is just ludicrous.

Americans, except for the few who can squeeze into courtrooms, pay the price for this aloof stance. Citizens are denied the ability to watch federal courts decide the people's most weighty disputes, from cases involving abortion rights to trials of those charged with the most heinous crimes.

A more realistic point of view would be that "Americans, except for the few who bother to actually go to courtrooms and see the process, don't much care what happens inside them." In my experience, whether in state court in Charleston or the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, nobody shows up to observe 95% of court proceedings. If the courtrooms were packed to the rafters on a regular basis, I'd be more inclined to buy that argument.