But it seems to have the opposite effect. Legislation can only be discussed in public hearings, and so they just turn into the lawmakers reading prepared grandstanding statements playing to the cameras.
"Public agency" is defined in RCW 42.30.020, which says:
> As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:
> (1) "Public agency" means:
> (a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;
> (b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;
> (c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;
> (d) Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOPsAcy5FYk
Wit 'fakeshang' mi showxa mebi walowda o mebi walowda walowda mang, demang xalte wit sif fo du ruchirowna. -- Da Dzhimi, Federalish 10 (1787)
It greatly unsightly for a country to have people like these for the apex court justices.
If you want to peek into oral argument, and actually learn something about the High Court, do yourself a favor and check out the incredible work Oyez does. They mash up the audio with the transcript, and sync it with a highlighted avatar for which Justice is speaking at the time. Having cameras in the court would destroy this medium of consumption, and relegate it to manipulated soundbites and distorted political ads. We should all detest any attempt to change the status quo here.
Here's an example from Oyez. An interesting case that has some good back and forth, and highlights how this really is the best way to consume the history of the court. They have the entire record in there, and their website is very well organized, so you can find whatever case you want.
Edit: As a testament to how deep this website goes, they've got audio from the 1960s curated in the same way. Here's a famous case (and very very relevant today) from 1963.
Some of the justices get their questions out ... very ... slowly. I don't know if you can necessarily attribute the lack of 'filler words' to some superior intellect. I'm sure the fact they all went to a few ivy league schools also trained them to speak in a particular manner.
> All oral arguments are open to the public, but seating is limited and on a first-come, first-seated basis.
I want prosecutors, public defenders, lawyers and judges in our courtrooms. I want Representatives and Senators in Congress. The actors can stay in Hollywood.
How is a Congressman supposed to negotiate on a bloody camera? That’s bad craft, you don’t negotiate that way, you don’t get anything done and we haven’t. Congress hasn’t and they’ve long let the White House run the show, bought into Nixon’s BS about being coequal branches when Congress used to reign supreme.
Courts have a similar problem, if you have the public and the Republic breathing down their necks the whole time, how is a good Judge, Jury, Prosecutor and Defense supposed to bring justice with all of the details aired out to the public in such a visceral and relatable form? You want to know the facts of the case, you can go there in person or read the damn documents, and the people that need to know will put in the legwork. There’s no need to make every trial into a YouTube video.
It has nothing to do with video (although the fidelity of recording likely has an impact). It's now know as the Hawthorne effect  but even before it was given a name, anthropologists who came to openly study remote tribes often reported markedly different cultural behaviors from more clandestine anthropologists and the locals whose contact with the remote tribes brought them to the attention of academics.
Just knowing that something is being closely observed and even recorded for posterity seems to significantly alter behavior. Basically like a possum playing dead, except with far more complex social interactions.
The citation doesn't seem to support much of anything:
> Descriptions of the well-known and remarkable effect, which was discovered in the context of research conducted at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant, turned out to be fictional.
> The original research involved workers who made electrical relays at the Hawthorne Works, a Western Electric plant in Cicero, Illinois. Between 1924 and 1927 the famous lighting study was conducted. Workers experienced a series of lighting changes in which productivity was said to increase with almost any change in the lighting. This turned out not to be true.
> Later interpretations such as Landsberger's suggested that the novelty of being research subjects and the increased attention from such could lead to temporary increases in workers' productivity. This interpretation was dubbed "the Hawthorne effect," although the data does not support that view.
> Other researchers have attempted to explain the effects with various interpretations. J. G. Adair warned of gross factual inaccuracy in most secondary publications on the Hawthorne effect and that many studies failed to find it.
Despite this seeming like a classic case of conflating correlation with causation, and the workers simply being more productive due to being more rested.
The psychologists then concluded that although this wasn’t evidence for the Hawthorne effect, the effect was still real. I turned off the radio.
All media has this effect of turning things into a simulated spectacle but video is likely worse because it's unmediated and real-time.
This tendency of turning everything into a movie, available to consumers at the click of a button permeates American society at this point, from protests, to hearings, to the presidents medical status.
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)
There was a question here in another thread "if you saw your surgeon reviewing a text book just before he started cutting you up, would you feel more or less safe?". I would feel less safe.
But it's obviously better if those surgeons who don't feel 100% confident do review.
This 1000 times. I learned extremely early there is great value to be found in being "the strategic dunce" in the room in any Engineering context, and it is the most difficult 'skill' to teach to Junior Quality people.
When you get a bunch of Engineers in a room, you can often follow what they think is going on, and if you only observe and question shallowly, everything appears fine.
Then you play the dunce and ask them to clarify a basic point. Do it once. Do it twice. Do it a third time. Usually by 3 or four, unless planning has gone off without a hitch, you'll uncover some misunderstanding or assumption someone made, but the rest weren't aware of.
It doesn't take much, just a willingness to hold people to make what they think explicit. It can seem like a tiresome practice, but by doing it, you can also short-circuit the pattern by which everybody delegates a complete understanding of the system to 4 or 5 people, and you start to have everyone able to delve into the details of larger and larger swathes of the system, reducing the chances of only discovering fundamental holes in understanding until it's too late.
I find 80% time investment making sure everyone is saying the same thing about the same thing any day; since at that point, the implementation basically lays itself out in front of the mind's eye,and you turn the builders into walking cross-check functions.
If you had basic cable, you got maybe 13 channels, one of which was C-SPAN, plus 3-5 local networks. Some of those would go off the air during the night. Others would be showing infomercials or bad movies or just whatever they had laying around. There was not a lot of competition at the time.
So if you were working the night shift, or an insomniac, or just up late watching TV for some reason, there was a decent chance that it would be one of maybe 5 things available to watch.
And hey, all those people get to vote. So if you want to influence them to vote a certain way, why not go talk to them when you're not really competing for their attention with anything else?
Plus you are probably the second person I know who thinks C-SPAN is a show. The first person is me. The consensus in America seems to be that C-SPAN is too boring and so many won't watch it.
I love C-SPAN and think that it is a significant public good.
Broadcast through PEG access channels such as C-SPAN lowers barriers to observation.
Politics isn’t pretty, you can put some lipstick on that pig but it’s still a pig, and has a pig’s nature. Maybe there’s still something to work with though, you want a high bandwidth window of observation, and I don’t want to throw accountability out the window entirely, just C-SPAN.
I want the smoke filled rooms and the backroom deals to come back because those are signs of a Congress that is putting the legwork in and not rolling over for the President.
I think everybody wants to know that there’s a Rep working for them on the floor, even if they can’t watch the floor and watch perfectly edited clips to show mountains where there are only mole hills and vice versa.
How do we all get what we want here? I’ve got some ideas, but maybe you have some too.
Maybe we just have different definitions for "negotiation". Please would you like to tell what happens in a negotiation, so I can better understand?
What happens on C-SPAN is a lot of posturing for the camera. The real negotiations, if they happen at all, happen between the Speaker, the President pro Tempe, the President and whoever the party whips have to cajole on that vote. That part doesn’t happen on the floors of the House and the Senate anymore because nothing hits the floors without the Speaker or the President pro Tempe signing off on it, and they’ll sign off on something even if they know it has no chance of passing just to try and score points with the base.
(or would legislators wind up texting A/S/L and deploying filibuster bots?)
Would you vote there?
The Supreme Court disallows cameras, but release audio, so those who wish to follow the court can still do so.
We see a lot of this on Reddit. Shaming is a powerful tool, but often should be reserved for punching up (power structures like the government, law enforcement, and large organizations ((not a small business)). Your average person is flawed and trial by public shaming seems cruel and unusual.
Like yeah, I get it, the random person you are filming is a racist but is the punishment the front page of Reddit? What’s your plan when the social climate changes and the stuff you do is now fodder to be recorded? There are some people that will record American women dressed revealing in other countries because, hey, culturally it’s shameful to dress like that. How there isn’t a bunch of public defamation lawsuits for this stuff boggles my mind. I can legally be a piece of shit, that doesn’t mean you get to just record me on one day out of my life and broadcast it on the internet.
Social media is going around banning misinformation. At some point, I want to see a crackdown on online public defamation.
But yeah, back to the point, no - you shouldn’t be able to record one of the worst moments of my life as I fight to clear my name in court.
Really? I have an issue with subpoenas. Subpoenas can make public to the court your phone records, your phone images, emails to your ex from 2008, your text messages etc.
You want to have a divorce court publish all your iphone text messages and photos? I think once a subpoena is requested the court must turn private -- at least to protect the innocent.
A friend used to practice law in New Orleans. One of his courtroom anecdotes is that there was a stock phrase for prosecuting vice officers, something like "just before she placed her lips on it, I arrested her" but one memorable time when this hackneyed phrase was trotted out on the witness stand, Defendant blurted out "Oh, no you didn't! That was the best damn blowjob you ever got."
In the New Orleans case, the outcome wasn't part of the story. Even if the judge felt witness had been credibly impeached, the manner of impeachment corroborates a solicitation charge, so I'd guess: conviction.
At one point you have to think of the victims too. For 20 repeat offenses recorded, there has been hundreds of beat-ups. I met a guy who said he’s been 200 times (his estimate) in custody between 13 and 18. He had only been condemned once, at 19. He bragged to me about how many French people he bullied, including locking up a fat kid in a basement for 3 weeks. You have to think of the victims.
Again, look at repeat offenses of usual criminals in newspapers, and remind yourself that they have been presumed innocent to the extreme and only condemned for cases which have been extensively proven, where victims dared to talk, knowing he has a condemnation rate of less that 0,5% per arrest.
Also, what do you propose? If it is not necessary to be declared legally guilty anymore, then what? The color of your skin? The mood of the prosecutor and judge? The number of times you are presented before the court? What if the cops don't like you? What if you are accused without proof and without mean to exonerate yourself?
The cases you describe of people committing 47 offenses (with no conviction you say, so the justice system decided that they were not actually offenses, Yet you are here claiming that they are without any knowledge of the facts) and then going to kill someone are very very rare. You can't have a 100% failure-proof system without complete totalitarian control over everyone in the population. Many of these people are just insane, they're not the organized terrorist group types, and the justice system is not equipped to deal with mental health issues. When it tries you end up with people in psychiatric internment for years and years without trial and with little recourse, which is another tragedy.
Criminal history should absolutely factor in to a case, and I believe it does in the US. But it is imperative for society at large that innocent people can expect to go unpunished.
Tomorrow is a new day! and Start with a clean slate! are laudable goals and ideals for us to have and we would all want that for ourselves ... but maybe not to the point of delusion and detriment to society?
However 200 (potentially false) accusations of assualt shouldn't matter. Otherwise a bad actor could just repeatedly accuse someone until the accusee hits the 200 (or whatever) limit.
If I remember correctly, the previous district attorney in Manhattan was very friendly with the wealthy people. Imagine how much they could legally wreck your life if this was left up to the prosecution.
And the places where people get away with a lot of crimes are places with corrupt underpaid police force rather then the ones with stopping civil protections.
On discussion forums people talk about it as if the issue was impossibility to find evidence against single dumb impulsive individual. When you look at places with a lot of unsolved cases, you see cops who don't care or who protect their friends or are corrupt or who prefer to prosecute random people. And you see good apples cops getting demotivated and loosing political confkicts against bad apples cops.
What you don't see is well discipline well intentioned police force that is just unable to get doctor report of injuries or use testimony as evidence.
In the same year, we’ve had several bethroatings over the summer (last one yesterday) from people who were presumed innocent several times. The victims are the bottom of the joke here.
You're conflating public opinion and the justice system.
> In fact our Ministry of Equality affirms that presenting a defense in justice is a problem of further bullying the victim, who shouldn’t be challenged in the process.
It doesn't seem to go against the presumption of innocence. You may not know but in rape cases, the victim and the alleged rapist are sometimes questioned at the same time, side by side, which can be quite traumatic.
> from people who were presumed innocent several times.
Being presumed innocent and being found not guilty are not the same thing. Everyone, even the worst of the worst, is assumed innocent.
Strange that the article failed to mention the Dr. Sam Shephard murder trial: see, https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/docs/default-source/Bio-relat...
If you think adding more cameras to Washington would help things...
I guess if we are trying to maximize entertainment, it would be a good idea.
The wheels of justice turned much faster then.
Judgments by judge or jury to be done 'blind'. Neither to see the person on trial.
How many people are not given proper justice becuase of how they look?
No matter what you will not be able to remove bias, whether it is being overly harsh because of the persons skin color, or overly easy because the person is attractive.
>>in one study, the effects of physical attractiveness on judges were so influential, they fined unattractive criminals 304.88% higher than attractive criminals.