Taxpayer-funded reality TV?
James Holmes' latest court appearance sparks a question: Why is it that sometimes there are cameras present when he is before a judge and sometimes not? It seems that the state of Colorado cannot make up its mind about TV cameras in court for this one.
Now some public trials were circuses long before TV was invented. For example, Oscar Wilde's libel suit against the Marquess of Queensberry became for a time just another witty Wilde lecture during his time on the stand. And the trial of Tennessee schoolteacher John T. Scopes for teaching evolution was contrived not just as a test case, but also as a boost to a small town's economy.
The trial came complete with dancing monkeys out on the courthouse lawn, for one thing, and long-winded rhetoric by William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow in a "cross-examination" that in reality was a debate on science versus faith. That part of the trial wasn't held in the courtroom due to how hot it was inside! The judge sensibly struck it all from the record as irrelevant.
One wishes the twitchy testimony of Kato Kaelin was so expunged from the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Don't tell me the presence of TV cameras did not influence the way that man took the stand. He was an aspiring actor/comedian, after all. In fact, it was thanks to Kaelin's courtroom "performance" that he is now a radio and TV "personality." And the infamous "the gloves do not fit" moment? That too should have been expunged due to the influence of TV cameras since it was a "made for TV" moment.
In my opinion it would be wise if they did not allow TV cameras in court when James Holmes' case goes to trial in August. Why? Because broadcasting a trial is nothing but taxpayer-funded reality TV. Yes, public justice allows it to be seen as well as done. But putting TV cameras in there makes it a "media event" first, public justice second.
Image courtesy New York Magazine.