Inquirer Editorial: High court is camera-ready
Here's a verdict that benefits the public: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has finally decided to allow television cameras to capture video of some of its proceedings.
Here's a verdict that benefits the public: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has finally decided to allow television cameras to capture video of some of its proceedings.
The decision has been a long time in coming for the oldest continuously sitting state supreme court in the country, a body that has been insular for decades.
The seven-member court had rebuffed requests for TV coverage of oral arguments for years, but voted in June to leap into the electronic age.
Not only will the coverage provide more insight into how the court reaches a decision, but it will also create opportunities for the public to learn more about the justice system.
The only disappointment in the court's announcement is that it waited until this week to reveal a decision made weeks ago, and provided no explanation. That's hardly open government.
Under an exclusive agreement with the Pennsylvania Cable Network, beginning Sept. 13, oral arguments will be taped in the justices' courtrooms in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh, and broadcast later.
Pennsylvania becomes one of the last states to open legal proceedings to the public through television coverage - and it is about time it did. But the state still remains behind the times. Thirteen states, including New Jersey, already allow live video coverage of arguments before their supreme courts.
Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille left open the possibility that the court may one day allow live coverage, too - a logical step in a world of 24-hour news cycles. Castille said some judges had understandable concerns about gavel-to-gavel cable coverage, but those reservations should have been allayed by tests conducted during a six-month trial run.
Some opponents worry that some attorneys will begin to play to the cameras. But with no juries present, the likelihood of that becomes remote. In fact, cameras in the courtroom should quickly become rather routine.
There should be some limits to media coverage, and the court has the authority to restrict cameras if needed, especially when hearing arguments concerning sensitive matters, such as cases involving children.
With so many state courts providing the example, it's time for the federal judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court in particular, to allow some television coverage. The public could get a firsthand look as landmark cases are argued.
Studies have shown that the presence of cameras doesn't disrupt court proceedings. There are more reasons to open up public access to the courts than to maintain the status quo.
