These are my definitions…

Immediate public: People surrounding you who can observe your actions, and you, more or less can observe their actions as well.

Wide Public: Free access to view another individual’s actions with or without that person’s consent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I even comment on this weeks reading, I believe it is essential that the idea of having more than one definition of “public” for legal matters could clarify some technological issues. Now that technology is widespread and many have access to televisions, radios, computers, etc., people now more than ever have the ability to learn about other people’s personal issues. Sometimes, personal information can be leaked to the “wide public” through technological means, without the consent of the individual.

For instance, imagine a man is walking down the street when he immediately feels an itch in his nose. He slyly looks around, and relieves himself by picking it. When the man picked his nose, he was in the realm of the “immediate public” where people could see what he was doing. However, chances are he will never see anyone who walked passed him ever again. That action occurred in one moment in time, and in one place, and never needs to be replicated again; however, it can be.

Now, imagine that man arrives home only to realize that his “nose-picking-moment” was capture either by video and photo. When he logs onto the Internet, there are picture of him picking his nose everywhere, and clips of him doing the deed on YouTube. Even when he turns on the television he sees clips of himself picking his nose and embarrassing himself in front of millions of people. In this instance, the act of “picking” within the realm of the immediate public has shifted to the “wide public”. This shift has led to embarrassment and has undeniably damaged the man’s reputation.

Why is this important to when deciding whether or not court trials should be televised? The defendant should have a say in whether or not a trial is televised.

Firstly, one major issue I found with the readings this week was that the jurors, the witnesses, and the defendant was never a central issue of whether or not is should be allowed to televise the trial. It appears only permission from the judge is needed to allow the case to be televised. I argue that permission should be granted from the jurors, witnesses, and defendant to have a trial televised. Doug E Lee noted that the “American public will only benefit from more coverage of trials” as it will better educate them on what the legal system is really like, in contrast to shows like “Law and Order”. When I read this, I immediately asked myself, “What about the individual on trial?” The experience of going through a criminal trial is already heart-wrenching enough—for the defendant, his family, and his friends. To expose his “legal woes”, as Scalia puts it, is only making matters worse. It is dehumanizing to the defendant as exposing him to the nation without his consent gives him even less say over his already jeopardized future. If televised, people may negatively judge the defendant because the saw him on television. Moreover, as mentioned in one of the articles, televising the trial may lead witnesses and jurors to act differently, and make different decisions. Therefore, they should be asked their opinions on whether the trial should be televised as well.

I believe the defendant should have the ultimate veto if he decides not to have the trial televised. Like the man who picked his nose, the trial can have serious negative implications for the defendant without his choice. The man who picked his nose lost his dignity; likewise, the defendant may lose respect amongst many of his peers and the American public, even if he is acquitted for the crime.

However, if the defendant chooses to televise the trial, and the witnesses and jurors consent, then it should be allowed. If the defendant feels this will ensure that televising the trial will ensure the legal process if followed correctly, it should be carried out, despite the judge’s opinion. Most importantly, the checks and balances for legal processes should be kept in tact.

Moreover, to ensure that the legal system is NOT corrupt trials should still be observed by the “immediate public”. Allowing the immediate public to observe the case enables the public to ensure that the legal system is not corrupt. Furthermore, any ridicule the defendant may suffer would only be contained to those who observed the case. For instance, the man who picked his nose would be forgotten had his actions not been recorded. Similarly, the defendant can escape ridicule from the “wide public” by containing the trial to the few who decide to observe the trial.

The most important question to ask when deciding whether or not a trial should be televised is: “Will exposing this trial to the nation’s public promote the sanctity of the legal process?”