LYSIANE GAGNON

Monday, July 31, 2000

The precedent has been established and it's not a good one. This week, a B.C. Supreme Court judge allowed television cameras into the courtroom where nine Korean nationals are being tried for attempting to smuggle a group of Chinese migrants into Canada.

Journalists' associations, the CBC and media owners are applauding, but, even though I've been a journalist all my adult life, I'm not. What's good for the media is not necessarily good for the society, nor, in this case, for the rights of the accused -- and this is the issue that should be at the core of a civilized legal system.

Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time before Mr. Justice Ron McKinnon's ruling becomes the norm. It will be gradual -- Judge McKinnon forbade the CBC cameraman from filming the jury and the defendants for their own security -- but, still, it's a first step and the slope is slippery indeed. There is intense pressure from the broadcasters, which have a vested financial interest in the matter, as well as from some high-powered lawyers who would love to raise their profiles by pleading in front of huge TV audiences.

The standard argument in favour of televised trials is that justice should be done in public. But it already is: Anyone can sit in a courtroom to follow a trial, and court proceedings are reported in the media -- the difference being that we don't see the actual people involved in the trials. This restriction is perfectly fair. Any first-year student in communications knows that TV is much more invasive than the print media or even radio.

Television throws a crude light on everything it touches and actually distorts reality to a greater extent than any other medium because it feeds exclusively on perceptions. TV viewers invariably focus on emotions and appearances: facial expression, body language, the way the person comes across on TV. Some people are telegenic, some are not; some people are comfortable with TV, some are not.

Welcome to the circus, where the accused and the witnesses will be instantly judged according to the way they look on TV.

The infamous O. J. Simpson case should have killed the idea of televised trials forever. Can't we remember the myriad comments about the woman prosecutor's hairdo? (She eventually hired an image consultant and renewed her wardrobe.) Can't we remember the wave of racism (from both sides) triggered by the criminal trial?

But it seems that more and more Canadians are willing to take another leaf from the United States, a country that, in matters of justice, shouldn't be a model. This is, after all, the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the democratic world; the country that gave birth to the California law that has people automatically sentenced to life for a third offence; the country where the degrading tradition of Southern "chain gangs" has been revived and where the irrational obsession with crime has reached epidemic proportions.

Another argument put forward by those who push for televised trials is that it would enable the public to develop a better understanding of the legal system. Nonsense. Those who want to know more about the system already have a huge amount of information at hand, including the opportunity to watch the televised proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada. (Of course, this makes for dull viewing since you only get to see lawyers making tedious, complicated arguments.)

What the TV broadcasters are after is not an opportunity to "educate" the public about the legal system, but higher ratings. Now that TV has gone through the reservoir of steamy fictional stories, it feeds on "reality" shows -- steamy dramas involving real people.

Once TV is allowed in the courtrooms, it will be highly selective: It will select the juicy bits and leave out the boring parts (the tabloids do the same, but with far less serious consequences because of the nature of the medium). What TV really craves is the Bernardo trial. Or any trial with the right combination of sex, blood, power and money. (Question of the day: How would Karla Homolka have come across on TV?)

Television will invade the jurors' privacy. It will intimidate many witnesses. It will reward flamboyant lawyers and penalize the camera-shy ones. And, most important, it will compromise the right of an accused to a fair trial. Whether guilty or not, the life of a person accused of a crime is already shattered by the publicity surrounding the trial. Under the glare of the TV cameras, it will get worse. This will not be public justice, but popular justice, the worst system of all.


Lysiane Gagnon is a political columnist at La Presse.

Subscribe to The Globe and Mail