egafd.com

Because UK TV coverage of a UK trial could affect those involved (jurors) etc, whereas Its doubtful many Iraqis will have UK TV coverage to watch and affect them.

As far as I know, the reasoning behind televising the trial is so that the people of Iraq can see that "justice is done." Don't think there'd be too many would contest his sentence of death, if that is passed, but it's strange that the charges he face relate to one specific incident after a failed assassination plot. Given how many of his other countrymen he had killed, it's rather odd.

Trial by television is fine in theory, but it would have to be the whole trial and would rely on the audience to sit through the whole thing. Given the nature of television companies, though, it would be edited down to the "exciting moments." A trial requires fairness, prosecution and defence having the chance to put their case. How often do you see banner headlines in newspapers at the start of a court case, replaced three weeks later by three paragraphs once the defence case starts?

As it is, the general public is swayed by what the media says about criminal cases. Add live television to the mix, and the chances of a fair trial just about disappear.

I think they are focusing on this one incident as it has the most chance of being legally won. It's one thing for everyone to know that he mass murdered loads of kurds etc but to prove it legally may not be as cut and dried as one might think.

I do hope the cunt gets what he deserves. Not execution. A long life behind bars feeling the torture of insignificance and powerlessness. For Saddam that would be excrutiating methinks. Then the ageing process can execute him anyway.

The michael Jackson trial was'nt shown on t.v. It was dramatised in a recreation from the court transcripts, which are available to anyone, as I understand it. It's already been pointed out that media coverage can unfairly bias a trial. There was a case in America involving a young british girl working as an au pair a few years ago. It was alleged she killed a baby by shaking it. The parents believed she did it and before the final deliberations by the jury they were on national television making an emotional plea for justice and that the girl should be found guilty. Many legal commentators asserted this skewed the justice process and resulted in an unfair conviction. Louise Woodward may have been her name but I ca'nt exactly remember.

It was Louise Woodward, and that's a good example to cite.

Why not televise trials in this country? The major reason has already been stated. But another important point would be, do we really want the public to see how shambolic the legal system can be? I've attended one court case (not in the dock, before anyone asks), and couldn't believe it when the prosecutor got the accused's name wrong, and the main prosecution witness couldn't identify his alleged attacker in court (you'd have thought that, in spite of only seeing him once, the fact he was flanked by a couple of police officers might have been a clue).

Televise this stuff by all means, but put it on the schedule with live botched heart operations. It would have exactly the same effect on public confidence.

The only objective view of a trial you will ever get is if you are there in person in the gallery; as you know, the sensationalism of the press clouds one's judgement and any case can be misrepresented by the ratings-agenda of TV companies, who probably wouldn't show blow-by-blow legal proceedings. A highlights package is woefully inadequate for objectivity and impartiality, but would be good for 'entertainment'.

Although impartiality for us is impossible in the Saddam case (as we 'know' what he has done!), if there is no full, comprehensive coverage then I for one won't be prejudiced by gutter press.

The situation is vaguely similar to going to a footie match: you are there in person, you see it for yourself, you see the whole thing, you see it for what it is (hopefully). You read and watch the reports/ highlights later, and depending on what you watch and read, you get wildly variable viewpoints from the biased to the assured, from the accurate to the just plain wrong. It's very difficult to objectify the subjective, we all interpret the world differently!! Hence, the person relying on said information on a match they haven't been to, or watched fully, may end up with a skewed representation of what happened.

As entertainment, a court case is better than any soap opera- being there in person, it's great! Although getting shafted as an expert witness by a smartarse/philistine lawyer is a pain in the arse!

I thought the first casualty of war was the truth...... it seems to be the first casualty of our so-called cloak-and-dagger democracy. How do we KNOW that our minds are being relayed the reality of a situation from the media.........? Oh, well. Trust your own judgement! And the beeb.............

Lecture finished, .