TV cameras encourage the “Oprafication” of Justice

Rethinking Crime and Punishment has come out strongly in support of Judith Collin’s concerns about the way TV cameras are being used to increase the level of emotion in the Court process.

In Its latest newsletter Rethinking focuses on this issue, and highlights what it calls the “Oprafication of Justice”, with in depth commentary from Associate Professor Chris Marshall, of Victoria University, and Tony Paine, CEO of Victim Support.
http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Print_Newsletters/Issue_107.pdf

Rethinking’s Director, Kim Workman, said the issue was highlighted in their submission on Victims of Crime Reform Bill. “We need to prevent rhetorical appeals to victims’ suffering in the court from deteriorating into a public skewering of the offender, with the TV cameras capturing every twitch of the offender for signs of defiance or remorse, and the New Zealand public casting their votes accordingly.”

We need to reduce the level of emotion generally, and more specifically at the critical point when the victim’s statement is read out in the Court. Filming can play a significant role in turning the courtroom into lopsided public theatre. While it is important for justice to be seen to be done, it is more important that it be done. If filming emphasises or encourages emotional behaviour, then it has no place in the courtroom. It has the potential to further traumatise victims, and encourage some to say and do things they will later regret.”

Rethinking has already proposed to government steps that could be taken to reduce the level of emotional behaviour in court, said Mr Workman. “The challenge is to provide the opportunity and space for victims to participate in the court process, without allowing the trial to degenerate into theatre. We propose a different approach, which we have called a Victim Offender Encounter, (VOE) which would satisfy the needs of the victim, without raising expectations that the reading of a victim impact statement would have some immediate effect on the sentence. It would also allow the victim to explain to the offender the harm that has been caused, without that process deteriorating into a public exercise in retribution. This process would be carried out in a session closed to the public and the media, with the outcome being reported back to the Court.
“This is not just about how to better manage emotion in the courtroom. We need to introduce a process which enhances the healing potential for victims and at the same time preserves the basic rights of defendants.”
Reference:

http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Print_Newsletters/Issue_107.pdf

© Scoop Media