Minnesota remains one of the few states that do not allow cameras in the courtrooms. We hope that changes in the decade of the 2010s.

One important aspect of the justice system that at times is forgotten by the legal professionals who participate in it is that it is meant to be open to public scrutiny. There is a basic tenet of fairness that says for the people to believe that justice was carried out by the government people get to witness and know about how that justice happens. In fact, it’s called court, not chamber, for that very reason. It’s open.

Cameras in the courtroom are merely the modern-day version of being open. Let the world see that justice was done under the bright sunshine of public scrutiny of the procedures.

These days there are some legal types so worried over pretrial publicity they are willing to compromise on that age-old aspect of openness. They argue that too much publicity spoils a jury pool; however, they are incorrect. The legal threshold is not too much publicity; it is prejudicial publicity.

In other words, if there are many TV, radio and newspaper stories on an alleged homicide, it doesn’t mean the jury pool is spoiled. However, if there are TV, radio and newspaper stories and even perhaps letters to the editor that lead the public to believe a defendant is as guilty as a cat in goldfish bowl — for a very plain example, “Gotcha!” as a headline at the time of the defendant’s arrest — then, yes, a jury pool could be said to be spoiled.

Here’s the deal: Some judges give a wide berth for what they deem as “prejudicial” and some — usually the ones with more awareness of media law — do not. The latter types don’t change venue at the drop of a hat. And there are a third kind, the judges who know the media doesn’t reach everyone. There are people anywhere and everywhere who pretty much live under a rock and pay minimal attention to what happens in their community. A quality jury can be found.

We would like to think the Minnesota Supreme Court, which governs whether cameras can be allowed in courtrooms, someday will take the enlightened route, that in the electronic age the Supreme Court came to view cameras as helping them fulfill justice in an open and fair manner — the way courts historically have sought to do.

Embrace the people. Don’t shy away from them. They are who the courts serve.