More cons than pros in live telecast of trials

telecast of court proceedings has advantages and disadvantages.

Among the advantages, it will allow more transparency in the justice system. By allowing the public to see court proceedings, they can gauge for themselves if due process is followed.

Another advantage is the accessibility of the courtroom.

A courtroom is not like a public hall where thousands of people can come in at one time.

Only a limited number of people can attend court proceedings and those who come to court are subjected to certain rules to respect the court, the judge and trial proceedings.

Among the disadvantages is that it can invite problems.

There are always two parties before the court: the prosecution and the defence.

The prosecution’s role is to prove the charges against the accused based on the evidence on record. The defence will rebut the evidence.

The court arrives at a decision after the trial is concluded with arguments from both parties presented before a judge.

If the accused is convicted, that will not be the end of the case. The accused can appeal.

Similarly, the prosecution can file an appeal if the accused is acquitted.

The trial-and-appeal process may take months or years, so it would not be reasonable to hold a live broadcast of proceedings.

It may also cause social unrest, especially if it is a public-interest case, of a sensitive nature and the trial involves a very important person.

There are hundreds of cases, and almost every other day there is a trial or hearing, so it is not possible to broadcast all cases.

Clearly, the cons outweigh the pros in this matter. So live broadcast of trials is impractical.