There have been thousands of higher profiles cases than this and have managed fine.
It's not to solely to "satisfy people's curiosity". Look at the path of destruction these two have caused. Look how long this trial is stated for. There are family and friends directly impacted that don't have the ability to attend a TEN week trial for a multitude of reasons. (This includes friends/family of the accused) CD & LV are also afforded a public trial under their constitutional rights. JP filed a motion to grant camera access and addressed what hardships this would cause.
In addition, you've seen an unheard amount of sealings and many other questionable decisions which has many people leery. If the state had it their way, we'd have this trial in 2068.
I still think this case will be analyzed for many many years as to what went wrong and why.
You make some good points for having cameras in this courtroom!
It does offer viewing access to family and friends living elsewhere. And to idle looky-loo's too.
At the same time, respectfully a few responses...
1 I'm not sure there's anything you mentioned that's not "curiosity" based, to cater to people's wish to be on the inside and watch the drama and think we understand it.
2 Those so close to the principals that feel they MUST see it, they will find a way to be in the courtroom somehow, with rare exceptions. And there, rather than at home watching TV, is where their support is shown anyhow.
3 We can rest assured there will be a mass of reporting that will happen, with quotes and more. Lack of Court-TV does not make any of it a secret. It's just a difference in the means of transmission to the public.
4 Having no TV's in the courtroom, that doesn't make it a non-public trial either. But it does keep it from being a minute-by-minute thing where "justice" tends to be graded (and public opinion molded) by the opinions of the day-long non-stop commentators, with their own agendas.
5 Neither defendants nor prosecution are promised Court-TV in the courtroom as their constitutional right.
6 The idea that other cases have been aired on TV is no assurance that those cases - or this one - can be (or were) well-served when it comes to justice, for doing so.
7 "I'm on TV and everyone can see me do _______" DOES change the way people act and think. Always. While that doesn't mean justice will ALWAYS get destroyed by the unnatural actions, it does open the door to that possibility of "true justice lost."
[My personal viewpoint - I would love to watch this trial. BUT, I would not want to do so at the price of changing the odds of these two evil people getting the justice they deserve for their abhorrent behavior, not even by a little bit. It's just not worth it imo, to let these clever slick-tongued people have enhanced chances to deceive.]
One other thing -- you want to see the trial on TV to see ansswers to the weird acts and ideas that have occurred, but a real trial is not like Perry Mason -- the trial itself WON'T address all the weirdness, and explanations won't be given at some point. Much of it will never get a mention. Some stuff will be puzzling and stay that way. In those areas, not having it on TV won't matter anyhow. Each side cherry-picks and brings in VERY SELECTIVE items that one side or the other thinks will advance the jury to the verdict they want.
