In some countries, some criminal trials in law courts are shown on television so that the general public can watch them. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
In several nations, court trials are televised publicly. Personally, the benefits of this can outweigh its drawbacks.
One of the primary setbacks of televising criminal trials is that media coverage can lead to widespread frustration and opposition. If the punishments imposed are insensible or there is evidence of bias affecting the judgments, the public will likely react with protest and resentment, which could act as a precursor to social unrest. However, I believe that such a consequence is inevitable, and can even be beneficial to the citizens as they can demand a retrial, which would allow for more sensible judgments to be made. Another disadvantage is that children’s early exposure to criminal trials can inadvertently impact their psyche. Nonetheless, it is parents’ responsibility to preclude their kids from watching those programs, rather than the law courts.
Despite these drawbacks, the advantages of covering criminal trials are more significant, with the chief benefit being the reduction of public stress. For example, by showing a serial killer being sentenced to life punishment, authorities can provide relief to the public relieved and restore their sense of security. Another benefit is that publicizing these trials can also ensure the fairness of judgments, as criminals are penalized sensibly and without favoritism. Consequently, the public will possibly trust their legal system and have confidence in its ability to deliver justice.
In conclusion, I maintain that the perks of broadcasting court trials, including public relief and guaranteed impartiality, can eclipse the disadvantages, such as potential public outrage and negative effects on children’s minds. Moreover, it is my opinion that these setbacks can be managed effectively if