But those mundane videos are mixed in with stories of substance abuse, violence, and injustice, of highly personal struggles-judges asking parents about addicted children, children about addicted parents.
#Judicial consent youtube tv
We don’t want everyday courtrooms to become reality TV shows, and we probably don’t want judges to become full-fledged YouTubers.Īs a viewer, clicking through court livestreams mostly turns up procedures that are bureaucratic, technical, and honestly pretty boring. “I’m seeing a lot more engagement from people who don’t have the resources to take a paid day off work and drive their working car to the courthouse,” she told me.įor now, court YouTube isn’t drawing big crowds, nor is it meant to. Miskel, too, has found more parent participation in remote child welfare cases. Appearance rates for individuals representing themselves-such as in eviction, child support, or traffic cases-have “skyrocketed,” Slayton said. Still, remote proceedings certainly have benefits: Participants save time and money on transportation and child care, for one. The Math That Explains Why Omicron Is Suddenly Everywhere Why It Feels Like “Everyone” Has COVID Right Nowĭon’t Cancel Your Holiday Plans (Yet)-Do These 5 Things Instead Notice Something Off With Amazon Reviews? You’re Not Alone. In Tuesday’s trial, the state provided iPads to potential jurors who needed them, but several members of the jury pool had technical or connectivity problems that ultimately prohibited them from serving. Requiring access to technology, internet, and a quiet, private space would certainly skew jury pools, but that’s a solvable problem if courts help provide access to devices, safe spaces to carry out jury service (such as separate rooms in courthouses, if needed), and robust technical support. When justice is livestreamed, that calculation is different, which puts courts in the complex position of guaranteeing public access in the vast majority of cases, while also protecting privacy as appropriate.Įxperts have raised significant concerns about due process and equity in remote proceedings, particularly in criminal jury trials.
Still, the people sitting on the stiff wooden benches in physical courtrooms usually have a significant interest in a case (a big enough interest to travel to the courtroom and pay for transportation and potentially child care, for instance). Courts can limit public access only for compelling reasons under narrow circumstances. But in that process, as the American Bar Association noted in a recent report, many courts “have not prioritized public access.” Public access is an accountability measure: In criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a “public trial,” and the First Amendment protects the right of the press and the public to observe court proceedings more generally. Courts are trying to figure out what technology, used in what way, can best approximate-and perhaps improve upon-the experience offered in a physical courtroom.