Time for cameras in courts

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/03/2012 (5186 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Media lawyers will impress upon a provincial court judge this week the value of allowing a camera, or cameras, into the sentencing of Graham James, a former junior hockey coach repeatedly convicted of sexually assaulting his now-former players. The world has been riveted by the case, which is sensational because of the individuals involved — names widely recognizable in a country that counts hockey as a cultural touchstone.

James’ victims are no less or more deserving of justice from the court. The crime was heinous as is all sexual predation of children. But the interest in the case has illustrated what is often the disconnect between justice and how it is perceived. Controversially, James was sentenced to 31/2 years for his first convictions in 1997; a subsequent conviction shortly after resulted in a concurrent sentence. Those sentences have been denounced publicly as symbols of how judges go soft on crime.

The Crown attorney in the recent convictions, however, has noted sentencing must be seen in the context of facts presented in a case, and less was known of James’ conduct at his first trial.

A camera broadcasting the entire proceedings of an sentencing would permit the public, for whom the concept of an accountable, transparent court was devised to serve, to balance their impressions against the facts and circumstances a judge must weigh. It is a small step toward opening Manitoba trials, inquests and appeal hearings to public broadcast.

Other jurisdictions have bowed to the relentless march of progress and made modern technology a part of the system. Manitoba’s judges have shown they are not there yet and believe there is too much risk in allowing people to monitor court cases in real time. This despite the fact a former attorney general and chief provincial judge both have said the hour is upon us.

Many people don’t understand the intricacies of law and justice, that judges are not untethered in their decisions, but follow precedent, codified principles and the Criminal Code rules in judging guilt and innocence, or in imposing sentences. But courts adjudicate the laws society constructs, and the educational exercise goes two ways.

Manitoba’s courts need a cultural shift and must step into the 21st century. A camera should be installed for Graham James’ sentencing and it should stay there, to herald the advent of the new, more robust way justice is seen to be done.