Should trials be televised?
In an age of technological progress, it seems inevitable that technology has been adopted
into the legal sphere as well. However, the consequences of broadcas ng a trial on na onal
or even interna onal TV channels undermines the primacy of jus ce that should be central
to any case- this essay seeks to rebut some key claims for the implementa on of televised
trials, while nally proposing an alterna ve solu on.
Supporters of a televised trial would argue that by showing the process of ge ng jus ce in
court provides a greater sense of con dence in the jus ce system. Millions of people watch
TV thus by expanding the trial’s audience to a na onal level, the trial can serve to educate
the public in regards to the law and the legal framework in society that many people o en
feel alienated from. The myths and mys que surrounding the law could dissipate by
watching a live trial. As a result, this could mo vate vic ms or people who feel they have
been wronged but are ignorant on how to stand up to their rights, to look for legal
protec on. Televised trials could catalyse an increase in the number of people seeking
jus ce and speaking up against injus ces.
However, this argument is myopic in regards to the reality of a televised trial. A trial
broadcasted to millions could distract both the judges and the lawyers from performing their
work to the best of their ability. Firstly, lawyers could focus on the social image of the
defendant that the media portray and a empt to gain public support to win the case rather
than focusing on the facts- this is undoubtedly a devia on from the primacy of jus ce and
fairness that lawyers have a duty to follow. Secondly, the jurors and the judges may be
nega vely in uenced or become biased through the image of the defendant that the media
propagate. In a televised trial, it is likely that people start to form their own opinions on the
case and post it on social media, as in the Heard vs Depp case where people from all over
the world published biased Tik Toks and pictures on the defendants. Since the jury and the
judges have access to the internet, they are likely to be exposed to the controversy and
public opinion surrounding the case, hence they might become unconsciously predisposed
in favour or against the defendant. Consequently, the quality of jus ce will be reduced,
resul ng in an inaccurate and perhaps unfair trial.
Even so, others claim that it has not yet been proven that cameras have a nega ve e ect on
nal verdict of the trial. Cameras are there to simply record and broadcast an event without
pressuring the lawyers to deviate from the facts of the case nor in uencing the decisions of
the judge. The real problem lies with the unprofessionalism and incompetence of the
lawyers/jury/judges rather than the cameras themselves. In addi on, the court is a public
forum in a liberal, democra c society and the public has the right to see the procedure;
while it is true that anyone can walk in a trial and watch it, many are unable to do so for a
variety of reasons like living in di erent parts of the work, availability, work or disability. Yet
a televised trials allows a much wider access to judicial hearings that most people would
otherwise be restricted from viewing.
On the other hand, while televised trials do provide greater accessibility to the law,
television tends to drama se cases by placing an emphasis on passions and emo ons so that
In an age of technological progress, it seems inevitable that technology has been adopted
into the legal sphere as well. However, the consequences of broadcas ng a trial on na onal
or even interna onal TV channels undermines the primacy of jus ce that should be central
to any case- this essay seeks to rebut some key claims for the implementa on of televised
trials, while nally proposing an alterna ve solu on.
Supporters of a televised trial would argue that by showing the process of ge ng jus ce in
court provides a greater sense of con dence in the jus ce system. Millions of people watch
TV thus by expanding the trial’s audience to a na onal level, the trial can serve to educate
the public in regards to the law and the legal framework in society that many people o en
feel alienated from. The myths and mys que surrounding the law could dissipate by
watching a live trial. As a result, this could mo vate vic ms or people who feel they have
been wronged but are ignorant on how to stand up to their rights, to look for legal
protec on. Televised trials could catalyse an increase in the number of people seeking
jus ce and speaking up against injus ces.
However, this argument is myopic in regards to the reality of a televised trial. A trial
broadcasted to millions could distract both the judges and the lawyers from performing their
work to the best of their ability. Firstly, lawyers could focus on the social image of the
defendant that the media portray and a empt to gain public support to win the case rather
than focusing on the facts- this is undoubtedly a devia on from the primacy of jus ce and
fairness that lawyers have a duty to follow. Secondly, the jurors and the judges may be
nega vely in uenced or become biased through the image of the defendant that the media
propagate. In a televised trial, it is likely that people start to form their own opinions on the
case and post it on social media, as in the Heard vs Depp case where people from all over
the world published biased Tik Toks and pictures on the defendants. Since the jury and the
judges have access to the internet, they are likely to be exposed to the controversy and
public opinion surrounding the case, hence they might become unconsciously predisposed
in favour or against the defendant. Consequently, the quality of jus ce will be reduced,
resul ng in an inaccurate and perhaps unfair trial.
Even so, others claim that it has not yet been proven that cameras have a nega ve e ect on
nal verdict of the trial. Cameras are there to simply record and broadcast an event without
pressuring the lawyers to deviate from the facts of the case nor in uencing the decisions of
the judge. The real problem lies with the unprofessionalism and incompetence of the
lawyers/jury/judges rather than the cameras themselves. In addi on, the court is a public
forum in a liberal, democra c society and the public has the right to see the procedure;
while it is true that anyone can walk in a trial and watch it, many are unable to do so for a
variety of reasons like living in di erent parts of the work, availability, work or disability. Yet
a televised trials allows a much wider access to judicial hearings that most people would
otherwise be restricted from viewing.
On the other hand, while televised trials do provide greater accessibility to the law,
television tends to drama se cases by placing an emphasis on passions and emo ons so that
