By Joe Johnson (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: January 25, 2012
Cameras in the BC courtroom might not seem like a popular topic, but the idea is hotly debated right now. Since the Vancouver riot, there’s been a move to punish those involved and it appears shaming them the government’s tactic of choice. Premier Christy Clark has been championing to broadcast the trials of those accused, and she’s being very public about it. If this happens, precedence could very well be set and would change some basic tenants of our justice system.
If cameras are brought in for the riot trials, it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve been used in Canada: they’ve also found their way into the high profile polygamy trials. Of course, because the polygamy trial is in the Supreme Court of Canada—which has regularly recorded their proceedings in the past—their use isn’t particularly unexpected. But the riot trials are in the BC court system, which hasn’t traditionally accepted the recording of their procedures; it’s another story.
Certainly the courts could use greater accountability and transparency, and having cameras in place would allow for that. But to be blunt, there is a reason I oppose the idea of having trials broadcast. It creates an entirely new dynamic, and is being used as a political tool to smear the faces of people who have not yet been convicted of any crimes.
Right now, as charges are laid, the people’s names become public and they are exposed. Generally, as these people are making their way to or from the courthouse, the media tries to catch up with them and put them on camera. Once these people enter the court, however, that coverage ends. This amount of camera time is minor and most people can hide their faces; it doesn’t give the media much to go on.
My own personal question is this: is lambasting the faces of those who are still not convicted really in the best interest of the public? After all, these people will still face the courts for their supposed actions, and they’ll either be sentenced or found not guilty. Adding cameras is certainly not helpful. In fact, it’s problematic.
First off, there may be objections from the defense as not all lawyers will want to be displayed. It’s easy to see how a lawyer with a losing cause would be opposed to be broadcast as a guilty verdict comes in. But even more serious could be issues arising with witnesses. The implications for witnesses are huge, and for many reasons – including intimidation or external complications for simply being at court – they might not want to be shown. If they were shown, it may even be grounds for having the case appealed.
Even the Crown prosecutors aren’t pleased with the idea; they actually understand the implications of having a trial broadcast.
Things become tricky when you try to balance credibility and openness in the court system with the potential issues that come from giving the system that openness. What should not be in play during the balancing of this process is the meddling of a government that is solely looking for votes.
As for Clark, her quest for ‘getting tough’ optics on the rioters merely comes across as pandering. The court system doesn’t need this. And while the debate over televising the riot trials has no easy answer, maybe we should consider that the courts might be closed to cameras for a reason.
