I think cameras ought to be everywhere the reporters are allowed to go. I think, furthermore, reporters and cameras ought to be everywhere that the Constitution says the public can go.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I certainly think cameras ought to be in courtrooms.
I think cameras should be in the courtroom, but they need to be managed properly. You need a judge to hold the line.
Cameras in the courtroom is a great idea.
The Court's objection to cameras may be much more a product of history and process than an unwillingness to be placed in the public spotlight.
And if you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide, I think, a certain measure of truth from the public, and I think that's very important for the American public to know.
I do think we need more cameras. We have to stay ahead of the terrorists, and I do know in New York, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is based on cameras, the outstanding work that results from that.
Should there be cameras everywhere in outdoor streets? My personal view is having cameras in inner cities is a very good thing. In the case of London, petty crime has gone down. They catch terrorists because of it. And if something really bad happens, most of the time you can figure out who did it.
The problem with not having a camera is that one must trust the analysis of a reporter who's telling you what occurred in the courtroom. You have to take into consideration the filtering effect of that person's own biases.
If you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide a certain measure of truth from the public.
When you have a child victim, I don't think cameras should be in the courtroom, ever.