Cameras in the Jury Room?

Sounds like good grounds for an appeal. If it came before me, I'd remand the case for retrial.

I agree. Aren't jury deliberations supposed to be secret?

Sounds looney to me. I though the whole idea was that jury deliberations should be in private to ensure im partiality. If the jurors know they are being watched they could be influenced by the fact that their discussion during the decision making process might have undue influence in their life by allowing the press to hash, re-hash, and criticize them as individuals.

I agree, again. Served on a grand jury for a year and we said some things in that jury room which would probably never have been said had we been on camera, but which had to be said to get everyone's opinion out in the open.

Juries have been filmed several hundered times before. What is new here is that this time the case is a death penalty case and there has never been a filming of jury deliberations in a death penalty case before.

I can see both pros and cons of the filiming proposal.

The death penalty is a hot topic in recent years and there are plenty of people talking about how the jury deliberations go but very few have actually sat in that room while they happened. Being able to see what happens could be beneficial to society as a whole.

At the same time I'd also have some concerns about how the jurrors might be affected by the cameras in the room. Now that there is a significant uproar over this one case this particular jury should most certianly NOT be filmed. They'll all walk into that deliberation room knowing that there is going to be a lot of critisism of their deliberations and I can't imagine that knowing that won't change how they act in front of the cameras.

fishin'-I think that there are many reasons that jury deliberations, (especially in the case of the death penalty) should not be filmed. In addition to the point you made about how cameras might affect the way the jurors behave, there is another, more serious concern.

If I were in a jury room deciding about whether a person lives or dies, I think that a juror would be very concerned about the ramifications to himself, and his family.

What might happen if the film became public, and a relative of the prisoner got wind of the fact that it was YOU who swayed the jury to opt for the death penalty? I think that the fear or retribution, might color a juror's behavior in the jury room!

Certianly Phoenix! I was including what is said and done in the total idea there and fear of retribution could easily affect both.

Apologies for not making my comment clearer!

When the first Reform Bill was being bitterly fought out in Parliament in 1831-32, King William IV, a true son of George III, who rose above his class and up-bringing to foster a proposal he personally disagreed with, would only support the measure on the basis of a man's vote being made vocally, in public, which was then the procedure. Juries were first empaneled in the reign of Edward I, and their purpose was more that of presenting evidence in mitigation, and standing surety for the appearance and performance of the accused--findings of fact or of guilt or innocence were considered beyond their lights and therefore their purview.

I would certainly hope that we have progressed far enough in our understanding of human nature, and our appreciation of human rights to guard the privacy of the ballot, and of jury deliberations. The entire principle here is that society should get the candidate they want, or the verdict they feel to be appropriate, without any fear of outside interference or of intimidation or reprisal. If such a measure were allowed, i'd seriously question the continuance of the jury system at all.