Televised court cases

HildajennyJ I think you are getting judges muddled with lawyers! If SA is like UK and USA the judges earn a salary and take as much time as a case needs.
Yes good point GrannyTwice about the transparency of the judges reasoning.
I don't think the verdict was a surprise to anyone was it.

He has been convicted of culpable homicide.
www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/oscar-pistorius/53387/oscar-pistorius-verdict-live-judge-masipa-delivers-her-decision

It's right that most trials are open to the public but choosing some to put on TV is quite a different matter. Re the judge, what's good is that she has to give reasons - that's one of the drawbacks of the jury system

Most trials are open to the public anyway, so that justice can be seen to be done. This is an extension of that in a time when many things are done and shown publicly which did not used to be.

I don't know how the length of the judge's summing-up compares to the usual. This case has quite a lot of detail to be made clear and I think Hollydaze is right when she says that all the reasoning is being laid out in advance of any appeal that might be considered.

As for the delay - maybe she wanted a bit of a rest after all that talking.

But Holly, that would be a very superficial way to learn and unfair to those defendants whose trials were chosen.

Do you think she is being paid by the day, and is spinning it out for a better pay cheque?

I heard on the news that her summing up is lengthy as she will want to avoid any of her decisions being used for an appeal so she is being sure to cover all aspects thoroughly.

I am also intrigued by a system that is absent of a jury (I understand they stopped using them in the 1960s) but uses three officials instead.

Sometimes it is a good thing to televise these court cases as it gives us examples of how things can be done differently, are they more effective than our system, can we adopt X, Y or Z into our system to improve it. It's just another way of learning.

I've got mixed feelings about judge v jury trials - but I'm quite clear that televising trials is manifestly unfair. Who would decide which trials? And on what basis? Why should some defendants have television coverage and all that goes with that and not others? I don't see how justice is served at all - quite the reverse in fact

I think it is turning a legal trial into a form of entertainment. I think I would rather trust 3 judges than some juries, specially in a case of such complexity and public interest.

There are some other charges hildajenniJ associated with firing a gun from a car and in a restaurant so she may have decided they all need to be dealt with together.

My Dad and I were rivetted. We listened intently, him through his headphones and me to the regular tele. The Judge is a formidable woman, and when she adjourned the proceedings for the day Dad and I were speechless, as we were on the verge of sentencing. Do you think she is being paid by the day, and is spinning it out for a better pay cheque?

When the case started I watched little bits of it and could not believe what the prosecution were allowed to get away with as I do not believe they would have been here. I thought the fact that they don't have jury trials was a retrograde step. This judge has made me think again as, of course, she does not need to direct the lawyers, she is perfect about to exclude the dross.

I found listening to her summing up fascinating ... too fascinating really but at least I could carry on what I was doing while it was on . It has actually made me wonder about both systems again. They both have their plusses and their minuses but I'm glad I had an insight into this.

I haven't watched it, other than the news clips, but agree, the Judge is impressive. It's made me consider whether our justice system could be better served by a similar system.
I once witnessed a County Court Judge send a barrister to the cells for the day, because his phone went off in court. One of the more likeable Judges had a huge piggy bank on his desk. Fines for phones going off had to be noiseless, therefore notes!