Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors want TV Time

by Comfort Zone Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:57

Living 10 years in a right wing political state scenario has it's benefits.:The social order
establishes itself through education and health policy= the ghettoes.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0319/12....html

Is there a class issue in the report above.(?)

A.G.S.I are looking for union status and creating a strenghtening lobby with the Dept of Justice.
Their plan, promulgated on RTE TV last evening to allow cameras into court to film
murder and rape trials will have a social context. The well-heeled middle classes
who live in the leafy suburbs can get entertained/disgusted and horrified by crime
in disadvantaged areas through vicariously sharing in the vigilantism of
'Trial by media' and thanking their stars that they are well-policed; and the tax bands
which allow their wealth and privilege allows them the family time to judge others!

complaints to: http://www.justice.ie

by Mike Wed Mar 19, 2008 19:17

Since the United States allowed cameras into courtrooms the esteem in which their wonderful police force is generally held has reached an all time high with the result that the United states enjoys the lowest crime rate in the Western world.

Or at least thats how it is on the planet that these gobshites inhabit.

Do witnesses -particularly rape victims (not to mention defendants who later turn out to be innocent) not suffer enough in our courts already what with having their names and addresses read out in open court and being questioned on the most intimate details of their personal lives without it being broadcast on the gawdamn six o clock news on tee vee tree ?

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 19, 2008 19:46

I'd be in favour of all cases being put on TV excepting cases that are normally held in camera, like rape cases and child custody hearings.

Courts are supposed to be heard in public. Presently, the District Court doesn't even use a stenographer and I've seen Judges refuse the right to defendants to hire their own stenographers (without, in my opinion, lawful excuse to do so - see ECHR Article 10). If all courts that should be heard in public were broadcast to the nation, the Gardaí and the DPP would be much less likely to get away with bringing the amount of shite they normally trundle into Court. Currently, a Garda's word (and in summary matters they rarely bring any other evidence) is seen as more trustworthy than a defendant's and this has the effect of both shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant and removing the presumption of innocence.

True, there is a voyeuristic aspect to this proposal, and in its current format (murder cases etc.) it's only pandering to this element. Voyeurs are not banned from attending the Courts to get their kicks, so televising it would not introduce the possibility of it happening. It would feed and encourage voyeurism but it would also encourage folks to take an active interest in the Justice System. Currently this interest is neither facilitated nor encouraged.

In murder cases too, this would facilitate the Gardaí ensuring that they did an impeccable job. Imagine the civil suit that would result for a fit-up broadcast to the nation.

In my opinion, if all cases were broadcast to the nation, we would, at last have a system where checks and balances are performed. We'd also have a very full record of all cases and decisions - we don't have this currently. Legal practitioners might also be embarrassed into getting the lead out and they might also be encouraged to get to know their client's cases, rather than the normal quick chat with their clients just before the case is called.

by mary Wed Mar 19, 2008 20:07

I think its a great idea and it would mean that everybody would have to preform at their best - judges - solicitors/barristors - gardai and in many cases those cases that are fought when its clear cut guilty, they might be more inclined to plea guilty and spare lenghty trials when they know thaT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM - WHY IS THE AUTHOR SO NEGITIVE OR IS HE OR SHE JUST ANTI GARDAI AND ANYTHING THEY SAY OR DO.

by iosaf mac diarmada Wed Mar 19, 2008 23:51

& immorally further profile TV based advertising revenue.

If that's not simple enough for you -

* if the police do not present a safe case & the courts get it wrong will a defendent or jury member who has been seen on TV and covered in horizontal commercial media be assured of proper future justice?

* What price will the companies who advertise during the commercial breaks of televised trial be expected to pay for their share of higher viewer figures & what safeguards or consideration would be placed on suitable or sensitive product promotion?

____________________________
In any society seriously committed to a proper and ethically transparent and accountable law enforcement service and justice or penal sector it is imperative to consider the role of such employees of the state as vocational and therefore end their "job for life" status. The inability of senior Garda management to uphold the rights of citizens, protect property and ensure impartiality & due process of law are monthly more apparent. The Superintendents and Commissioners should resign en masse and make room for a new generation.

by Seán Ryan Thu Mar 20, 2008 01:11

I see where Iosaf is coming from and to a large degree I agree. RTE should never figure into any such move.

The Courts Service has a website: http://www.courts.ie

Twould be easy to use this or some other non-commercial media to host such broadcasts (copyleft !!), where no grubber like RTE could capitalise on it.

As for juries and the like being a part of such broadcasts, there'd be no need for that - it could endanger them needlessly.

Other than that, I fully believe that all cases should be aired in public, in the most public way possible. Imagine for example, if the Ploughshares trials, Mary Kelly's trials, the Rossport trials, the Tara trials and all the others that could be mentioned, had been aired: would things be viewed differently in this country? I think they would and for the better too. The MSM, including RTE, would be dead in the water regarding their propaganda and 'death by ignorance' methodologies, relating to these issues.

I take Iosaf's point on the possibility or indeed the probability of unsafe convictions resulting from public opinion. It's hard to nail Iosaf in any particualr argument he makes as he's usually on the ball. In this instance though, I think there's a balance that needs to figure into the equation. And that is: we have no idea presently of how many unsafe convictions occur, particularly in the District Courts. If all was above board (I'm not suggesting corruption of the Courts here) and on full and public record, it is probable that unsafe convictions could be overturned based on publically available evidence. Afterall, currently, all we usually get (from the District Courts - remembering that District Courts hand out the most convictions and prison sentences) is the Judge's ruling, which doesn't really inform, it usually doesn't say much, other than guilty or innocent. At least with an unsafe conviction resulting from public pressure, it could always be compared to the law, and if it failed to agree, the conviction be quashed and a civil suit initiated. Sue the shite out of em - there's motivation to keep on the straight and narrow.

At the end of the day, any such proposal would need to be scrutinised in very fine detail and, we aint there yet, nor nowhere near there. I realise my gung ho attitude that I've displayed might be somewhat misleading, regarding my intentions - my apologies. But I seriously think it's the way forward. To me, it all goes back to the saying that says: "Justice needs to be seen to be done."

Regarding Iosaf's "job for life" point: we're in total agreement there.

by hm Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:08

want to record murder cases (as they do in the US) for public consumption.

This is about entertainment Sean.
This is about the modern equivalent of the medieval stocks.
Its about creating deterrent through public engagement.

it is not about:-

fairness.
it is not about due process.

ask the branch about the diplocks?

AGSI are lobbying cos they want 'us' to see how they suffer.
It is not a good idea, when our prisons are in shit.
(did you read the links)
Show-trials and crap prisons- normalising violence for public consumption
asked for by a lobby group who opposed the ombudsman?

by Seán Ryan Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:37

I have not agreed with the AGSI's proposal and I've been quite clear about that. I'm most certainly not jumping on their bandwagon, I've held this opinion long before they proposed their mockery of it. I've followed all of the links and one of them, in the first comment, tells how the poor are 30 times more likely to end up in Court than the rich and it specifically mentions Moyross which has a population of around 5,000. I'm from Moyross and am bloody well aware of how all this works.

More than half of all those who are in prison at any one time are serving sentences of less than three months, and have been sent there by the District Court for the most part. We've no idea whether any of these incarcerations warranted incarceration or indeed conviction. And there's no record whereby we can check.

I'm not proposing cheap entertainment and in fairness, I don't think my posts even begin to hint that I am.

I realise our prisons are crap too. However, so are our hospitals. We will not fix the ills of our Courts by focussing on the malfunctions that occur everywhere else.

For what it's worth, I don't oppose the idea of the ombudsman in principle. I do oppose it in practice. The terms of reference are way too narrow and one cannot but wonder where all the employees that formerly worked in Garda Complaints went. Plus, they've been open for quite some time now - how many Gardaí have been done for perjury, lost their jobs and their pensions, etc.?

by Diogenes Fri Mar 21, 2008 17:39

Mary, you seem to have arrogated to yourself the right to decide when someone is 'obviously guilty'. As for your claim that a defendant might plead guilty because the 'public can see right through them', what is it that the t.v. viewers will see that a jury (drawn from the same public) will not?
It's bad enough that sensationalist print media can effectively decide guilt from day one of a trial, just imagine commercial t.v. Catchy theme music, telegenic young presenters who do nothing but ask pre-prepared 'leaders' to carefully selected 'experts', breathless on the scene reporting,tearful interviews with the 3rd-cousin-twice-removed of someone who sat in playschool with the victim,lots of soundbites, shiny but meaningless computer graphic-y things and an on-going poll on "whether you think the defendant is GUILTY (loud voice) or not guilty (quiet voice)".

by Gladiators Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:50

Cheap reality style telly for the sensible-shoed Irish boureogis would have to get a bit
more vicious , a bit more spectatorial- wouldn't it?

people like Mary could develop an opinon on Murder based on evidence
produced on telly and use little interactive buttons(much like Bertie and charlie's voting
machines: to feel like they have a life and an opinion on 'Crime and justice').

I was going to write about Martin's Mission of evangelisation in Ireland; but we really
should be looking at importation of corporate US shite and how FF and cronies
own so much of the debate on processed food and GM in the EU and will sell
anything for profit.

There are rights and dignities fought for all over the world, people get murdered for the right
to freedom of expression, in ireland we do not have these debates- why??

It is wrong to televise (not record) trials. it normalises violence for public consumption.
AGSI was wrong to propose it.