Cameras make justice more transparent

The Minnesota Supreme Court is trying too hard. The high court has tackled the issue of cameras in the courtrooms at a glacial pace and treated the subject like it’s either a ticking bomb or the second-coming of the Black Plague.

What’s hard to figure out is why this issue, which so many other states tackled decades ago, remains an issue here in Minnesota.

Granted, newspapers and the media have a vested interest in the outcome. But don’t for a moment think the average citizen doesn’t have a real stake in what happens inside the courtroom.

And the issue is fairly straightforward: Allowing photographers or videographers access to the courts’ proceedings.

In other states, photographers and videographers are simply part of the sometimes eclectic mix of folks who show up to witness the slowly grinding wheels of justice.

Most of the concerns raised by allowing cameras into the court center around the distraction factor. Or opponents worry that media coverage will somehow inhibit the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial.

But studies and experience prove both of these concerns are red herrings.

Media coverage and public interest in trials have been around as long as the courts have. The only remedy is closing the courts completely, which goes against the way our government works. We don’t have trials in secret — justice is an open process and it should be transparent.

For better and worse, it’s a good thing for people to know how their courts work and see them in action.

The high court is taking public comment on a recent recommendation to study the issue — for the hefty sum of $750,000.

This study — led by some University of Minnesota professors — is the epitome of well-intentioned nonsense.

The study would look at certain randomly selected cases and use control groups and measure the case outcomes.

But anyone who has ever sat through even the most routine misdemeanor knows there’s no such thing as a routine case. And trying to ascertain the outcomes can be tricky, especially in the all-too-common plea-deal environment.

In other words, the $750,000 is a waste of money and a waste of time.

If the court is really so determined to break virgin ground where other states have trod for years, then design a program, choose a few courts and see how it goes.

Heck, we’ll volunteer to be one of the test partners.

But it seems like a ridiculous amount to spend, especially when the Third Judicial District can’t even afford public defenders.

If the judicial branch is so paralyzed by indecision (odd for a bunch of folks who make countless life-changing decisions per week), then maybe it should be up to legislators to simply write cameras into the court as law, and save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.

— Winona Daily News, Nov. 29