h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My comment on viewers only seeing part of a trial still stands, though. Unless, of course, trials are always held in the evenings when people have got back from work, which I doubt. Or maybe they do complete re-runs, as they would for popular sporting events. If not, people will only see 'highlights', or sections shown on the news.

I don't think the OJ Simpson trial is a good one to pick as an example of how good or bad a thing TV coverage of a case is. The whole thing was a media circus from the police chase to the trial and beyond. It actually gave a lot of people over here a very bad impression of the U.S. system of covering legal cases and also, to a certain extent, of the U.S. legal system.

That trial was very unrepresentative of the nature of court coverage. It was a media circus only because of the notoriety of the accused, and because of the drama that played itself out during the chase. Californians televise car chases in progress, but this one became famous, again, because of the notoriety of the accused. If you were to do the same thing, it would go nearly unnoticed by the public at large. And, for your information, many people did watch the entire trial... housewives, retired persons, people who work night shift, the independantly wealthy... not everyone has a 9-5 job. The rest of us could depend on analysis from the hordes of legal analysts who were getting paid to watch it from home.

That trial also gave the US a bad impression of the US legal system. That's the point. We need to expose the flaws in the system in order to correct them. If we expose them to the entire world, well, maybe they can learn from our mistakes, too. An open democracy is the only way to have democracy. If you ask me, the British system suffers for its, if you can forgive my bluntness, prissy need to keep up a good appearance. Televised coverage of British trials would no doubt expose some alarming weaknesses, but since that doesn't happen, you can proudly proclaim that you have the best system in the world. Meanwhile, we Americans can openly admit that our system is s**t, and get to the business of fixing it.

In Britain we know our system isn't perfect. If it was, there wouldn't be people being let out of prison after an appeal. I guess that happens in the States, too. From the 'victim's' point of view, the system isn't perfect because the punishment doesn't always seem to match the crime. (Once the perpetrator has been caught and brought to justice, that is!) That is also probably true in the States.

There's more than one reason for keeping cameras out of a courtroom. I don't know why we do it over here, other than the fact that it has never been allowed, but a 'prissy need to keep up appearances' is unlikely to be the reason. On the odd occasions that I've seen a report on a trial (I don't watch news on TV that much), the prosecuting or defence counsel can end up looking an idiot. Trial reports in newspapers can also make judges seem like doddering old fogeys who are completely out of touch with what society thinks and wants.

Thing is, I don't know many people over here who would want to watch court cases. Big ones, like OJ Simpson in the States, or the 'Yorkshire Ripper' over here, would be a different matter. Those would get a big audience because of the notoriety of the crime or the perpetrator. Other murders or rapes / sexual assaults might also get a reasonable audience because of the nature of the crime. But your average 'breaking and entering' or motoring offence? I don't think so. Even if cameras were allowed into our courtrooms, few British TV companies would bother to film for daily viewing because it would be as interesting as watching paint dry. I'm willing to bet that your 'Court TV' channel is selective over what they show, too. I'd be surprised if they weren't. At the end of the day, all a company is interested in is making money, and they won't do that if people aren't watching (and hence watching the commercials which I assume are still on during a trial).

I enjoy watching film courtroom dramas, but that's all they are - dramas. Life isn't like that very often, if at all.

In the end - everyone is biased, so whoever decides what to show of the trial - which type of trial, or what highlights from the trial - would reflect the bias of the chooser, and so would automatically show an incomplete picture of the court process, and telling half a story would in the end distort the public view and no more inform them what was happening than if they did not film.

So, to avoid this - if you do allow filming of court cases, they would have to film all court cases, and never select "highlights". "Highlights" seem to be a very easy way of making the whole system biased and catered for entertainment, not education.

At the end of the day, I'd prefer it if the people in the court concentrated on doing justice, and not what they look like on TV.

I totally agree. Although the US system of televising trials does show how the legal system works, with all its short-comings, the picture we get over here is that it's all for entertainment, not education. I suppose the problem is that the cases we 'see' over here are the high-profile ones like OJ Simpson, or the UK-related ones like Louise Woodward. (Why the UK press and politicians got involved in that one I shall never know. Mind you, I also don't know why she was charged with murder rather than manslaughter. Surely with murder they have to prove intent.)

I thought they didn't have Manslaughter in the US, just 1st and 2nd Degree Murder. Is this true? I'm not sure about the US legal system....

Yes, they do just have 1st and 2nd degree murder in the States, at least as far as I'm aware. However, every news report I caught some of (and it was hard to avoid them) just said that Louise Woodward had been charged with murder. They didn't specify the degree, and the snippets of the trial that I saw gave the impression that they were assuming the intent to kill, or at least that she didn't care if her actions resulted in death.

This is another example of the problems that can result from only seeing bits of a trial.

I think that, in the US, there are Ist, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. 1st requires intent (e.g. you plan to and shoot someone), second is also called manslaughter (e.g. a drive-by shooting, where you intend to kill someone, but you kill others that you didn't), and 3rd is also called involuntary manslaughter (e.g. you run over someone accidently and kill them).

that doesn't sound quite right,
There is premeditated murder (murder 1?)
murder without premeditation (murder 2?) where you kill someone in the heat of the moment
I'm thinking manslaughter is when you kill someone by accident while trying to hurt them (hit them with a stick and they die kind of thing,) does that sound right (I'll see if I can look it up)

OK back again
Merriam-Websters collegiate dictionary



man·slaugh·ter

noun
Pronunciation: 'man-"slo-t&r
Date: 15th century

: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied
malice

involuntary manslaughter

noun
Date: circa 1879

: manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty
expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of
an unlawful act not constituting a felony, or from the commission of a
lawful act in a negligent or improper manner

doesn't help with the murder 1/2 etc I'll keep looking ~grin~

I have a book on 'Usage and Abusage' of the English language. It has a section on the similarities and differences between murder, manslaughter and homicide. According to this book, and also according to the Oxford English Dictionary, murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought'. That is, 'murder' implies not only the knowledge that your actions COULD kill, but also the intention to kill. The book goes on to say that, in the US, 'murder in the second degree' is murder with mitigating circumstances. 'Murder in the first degree' is murder with no mitigating circumstances. In the UK, 'murder' is planned; manslaughter is unplanned, but may still have been intentional (e.g., in the heat of an argument). Homicide covers both murder and manslaughter.

So, if Louise Woodward was charged with murder in any degree, they are saying that she intended to kill the baby, i.e., there was malice aforethought.

got a url that might help then I'll leave you all alone
http://lectlaw.com/def2/m053.htm (first degree murder)
http://lectlaw.com/def2/m054.htm (second degree)
http://lectlaw.com/def2/m013.htm (manslaughter)

no guarantees about the site but it looks pretty good

I think Miranda was a bad decision. Under common law, people are assumed to be familiar with the law. Everyone has had basic civics, so they should have some clue about the law, and they've heard the silly thing being read on tv so much, there's really no excuse for anyone not being familiar with it.

In Dickerson v. the United States, the decsion that was supposed to 'overturn' Miranda, would not have overturned Miranda. It would have just changed things a little. Miranda required the warnings or some other safeguard to ensure that statments are made voluntairily. So Congress wrote a law (I forget the section number) that would use several standards to gauge the voluntariness of the statement. One of those considerations is if the warnings had been read.

The court's decision was totally illogical based on what Miranda actually said.

On the other hand, it's not that big a deal. When I was a rookie officer, I had problems when people whouldn't talking to me after I read them Miranda, but when I got the knack of it, it was snap. If you present it right, it doesn't have any effect on a conventional interrogation.

The definition of murder varies. Each state and nation can define it differently. In Georgia, our law is more closely related to common law than in most states. We don't have many laws that have degrees. I recall in Oregon, we had three degrees of murder and rape.

In Georgia, we have the basic common law version of murder, but we also have "felony murder". Felony murder is when someone dies while your commiting a felony and you didn't mean to do it.

I met this old guy once. He was in a bank when it was robbed. This guy shot and killed one of the robbers. The other robber was caught, and charged with the dea robber's murder beacause he died as a result of the felony he was commiting. That's what I call justice.

"Felony murder" - the equivalent in the UK is "Illegal Act Manslaughter". The main reason why it is manslaughter is so that the judge has more leniency in passing sentance if there are special circumstances involved, where with murder the judge has to pass a life sentance. You can still get a life sentance for manslaughter, though.