Anne Glydel Dalagan

March 26, 2014

Prof. Maricris Martin

English 10
Process Paper

My position paper talked about my position in televising court trials and at first I say a
no. But as I browse some references that I will use for my paper, I changed my views and my
arguments about the topic and realized that my position about the topic is not good as I thought.
Thats why I changed my position into a yes. I also think that I havent explore more about the
topic, but still I think that I presented my arguments and their respective counterarguments well.
It became hard for me to work out the last paragraph because I couldnt think of something that
will make the ending good. Since its already finals week, I really didnt have much time to
accomplish this paper well.

Anne Glydel Dalagan

March 26, 2014

Prof. Maricris Martin

English 10
Should We Televise Court Trials?

It is already a general rule that controversial cases should be televised. It is written in

Article III, section 14 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that an accused in a criminal case
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and shall have a speedy, impartial and
public trial. A public trial is a legal trial held in a court made open to members of the public
(Wisegeek.com). Most of the public trials that relate with peoples concerns are televised.
However, the publicity of some of court trials raises interesting issues concerning democratic
rights and individual liberties and gave huge responses from the people inside and outside the
courtroom because of the effects it caused on some trials (Bautista). Some government officials
also thought that televising court trials will not contribute on the progress of a court hearing.
Even so, legal proceedings are still important to be televised and should be open to public
particularly the controversial cases with a widespread public interest or cases that are
appropriately closed to the public (Dershowitz). Why?
First of all, everyone can watch the court trial without having their presence in the actual
court proceeding. Anyone has an opportunity to attend and witness public court trial. Since there
were just limited seats for the people inside the courtroom, not everyone can witness an actual
court proceeding. But since there is already media coverage of the trial, people can save time,
effort and money by just turning on, and watch their televisions. It is also the advantage of the
family and relatives of the one involved in the trial to watch it even if they are not present and
cannot attend to the hearing. The negative side of exposing a court proceeding to the public is
that people may judge beforehand and reach to a conclusion of innocence or guilt that may

not correspond to the verdict and conclusion of the judge and also may change their faith in the
validity of the conviction (Bautista). The viewers might be persuaded that the suspect was
really guilty of doing a crime and should be immediately sentenced by a punishment and the
victim was the one who was saying the truth about the real happenings or the other way around.
But these are only the viewers views or opinions. The court should rely on the truth and
concrete evidence that will provide the real and true judgment for the convicted person.
Second, publicizing court trials may improve confidence in our justice system (Bautista).
There are possibilities that during a live coverage of a trial, a judge may play to the camera and
render judgments that are in tune with public opinion but not in agreement with the evidence
presented (Bautista). At the same time, unskilled judges might not do their functions properly
and might result to wrong judgment for the convicted person (Bautista). Sometimes, cameras can
also distract people and thus, might cause negative effects to the trial. However, it gives greater
possibilities that lawyers and judges may improve their behaviour and turn out to be more
professional. Since everyone can watch the trial, a judge may become more efficient and
professional in making judgments and sentence. The lawyers may encouraged to work harder by
excessive publicity, since it may call the attention of the people and may attract future clients
(Montaldo). Therefore, our first assumptions should not become a big problem because judges
and lawyers should really become professional and be committed on their job even if there is or
there is no camera on.
Third, the publicity of a court proceeding does not affect the final verdict. In fact, a latest
study conducted by Loges and Bruschke showed that the televising court proceeding has at least
a little effect or no effect to the final outcome of the trial. They examined more than 300 cases
and showed that the defendants in half of the cases (ordinary trials that received no publicity),

were found guilty seventy-nine percent of the time. The other half cases or the cases which were
televised showed that the defendants were found guilty eighty-two percent of the time. The little
discrepancy between the results showed that there is no linear relationship between the number
of guilty defendants to the publicity of a court trial. They found out that either pre-trial publicity
or ongoing trial coverage has a very little or at least no effect or influence on the final verdict
(Montaldo).
Next, televised trials can compensate to the sometimes biased slant of print media
(Bautista). Technology has given way to the court trials to publicize important and controversial
cases for the public. Then, newspapers and other print sources were the only sources of
information of people. But not all people are capable receiving these information so it really did
not become effective as medium of information. At the same time, not all we read in newspapers
or article in the internet are true. We dont know the real motivation of these authors. Stories
evolve before your eyes and so-called 'facts' are frequently changing (Montaldo). We are
unsure how credible these sources are. Sometimes, newspaper or internet articles already have
bias from the authors opinion thats why these sources of information were inadequate for
scientific search of truth and not always reliable (Deshowitz). Its like getting information
without a real substance. But because of the continuous development in technology, anyone can
easily access information through television and internet. Televising important court trials will
notify the public about the controversial cases that carry their interest. Also, it will helped the
viewers to observe the court proceeding itself, understand what really happened and develop
their own views and thoughts about the trial rather than relying on some biased newspaper report
or internet news article. There was also a downside on what views might people get in watching
a televised trial. Sometimes, television tends to focus on the sensational aspects of a case which

may prejudice the search for truth (Bautista). The viewers might lead to a wrong conclusion to
their observation to the gestures of the convicted person instead of focusing on the scientific
evidence presented on the case.
Lastly, having a video recording of the trial was a more accurate tool to use if in case
the case is brought on appeal (Bautista). It will indeed, helped a lot in investigations since the
court can observe actual court proceedings instead of depending on the stenographic notes. But
there were also some disadvantages in recording court trials. One example is that it may cause a
delay and a slow progress in the flow of the proceeding. It can be remedied if the media will
setup their equipment a bit earlier so that there will be no any distractions when the trial started.
Its up to our courts whether they take notice of several international studies that show
that televising a court proceeding does not really prejudice the accused (Bautista). Also, it is
not bad televising court trials as long as peoples rights and national security is not affected.
Some people still thought that televising a trial might become just another entertainment show,
but what matter most is the democratic right of the people to be informed about the issues
concerning them and to discover the truth themselves.

WORKS CITED
Bautista, Dean Andy. Media in the court room. Opinion. Philstar.com. 20 November 2010,
Web. 25 February 2014. <http://www.philstar.com/opinion/633495/media-court-room>
Dershowitz, Alan. Televise Trials and Appeals. Alandershowitz. 2002, Web. 25 March 2014.
<http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/televisingtrials.html>
Montaldo, Charles. Free Press vs. Fair Trials: Book Challenges Media Influence on Trial
Verdicts. Crime/Punisment. About.com. n.d., Web. 25 March 2014.
<http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/blosu041226_2.htm>
What is a Public Trial? Wisegeek. Wisegeek.com. n.d., Web. 25 February 2014.
<http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-public-trial.htm>