I cannot believe, in this day and age, that we still have to look at crayola etchings on TV of people who testify in court.

What is the big deal about letting a camera record events? There may be some good reason. But if it's something like " It's tradition " or " It's sacred." I don't buy that.

Why can we not get with the times?

Tim Russert looks bad with Burnt Sienna ( that happens to be my porn name ) on Yahoo headlines.

Because judges are the closest thing we have to royalty, once their on the bench their virtually untouchable, and they dont want anyone to see the stupid rules they impose on people.

God I hate Judges!
Who are they to sit in Judgement of me?

Why don't we just throw out the whole notion of jurisprudence as laid out by our founding fathers, and istitute something that suites Nwokie?

Think about the circus that was the OJ trial and you'll understand why any kind of camera is usually disallowed by judges.

I'm ok with no cameras, if the judge thinks it's an issue.

It's a control issue. Most people find some decisions judges make not just, and they all ask, "where is the check?" --essentially, not those literal words. Don't like a ruling? That's what an appeal is for.

Amus sized this up: "An activist judge is one who made a decision you don't agree with". (I'm close enough to not matter...)

IMHO, this is a big part of the push toward mandatory sentancing. Control issues again.

At one time, judges were quite free to decide what punishment was just, or that might actually address the problem. Now it's very restricted in a lot of areas. Look at our jails filling up as a result.

The more control we try to exert in this, the worse off we are, IMHO.

Anyway, it's all about who's in control. Judges need the impunity they have, if they are to actually judge! Without this, they become biased and that's what the whole system is supposed to prevent.

"Think about the circus that was the OJ trial and you'll understand why any kind of camera is usually disallowed by judges."

I would rather have NO cameras in celebrity trials. But the day-to-day stuff? Maybe they do document it that way. I hope so.

But OK - my bad. I was actually combining two issues and it's no wonder I was misunderstood;

My REAL point is much more mundane. I don't get why we have to have artist sketching witnesses. What harm is there to snap a picture and show that if it needs to be pictured my the media or whatever...well, yes...ok..only the media is where I would see it I guess. But doesn't a sketch seem, I don't know, overly quaint?

I've always liked the sketches. To me they represent our legal system in some special way. It's kind of like testimony, as in: "I was there and this is what I saw happen."

A picture seems shallow, but more effective I suppose.

Never, ever have questioned the sketches, nor the reporters. We don't need either of them today as technology does the trick easily enough. Digital records are editable though, and they can be lost. Maybe having a person do these things is not so bad.

Hah can you all think of how the OJ Simpson trial would have looked to us if we had some schmuck in there with a notebook and his Crayolas instead of the cameras? HAH!

Usually they are trained beyond college and have a degree in the fine arts. Since these days an art degree means you get to choose which section of the restaurant you want for your wait shift, I am all for court artists. They probably earn less than anyone except the reporter and maybe the bailiff, so cut 'em a little slack.

I'm with Edsel & Brian. Take away the cameras and Ito the rock star goes away and Ito the judge gets his butt in gear.