And the Oscar goes to… the South African judicial system. The judge for the murder trial of athlete Oscar Pistorius has decided to admit radio and television to his Pretoria court room today. It should get an 18 certificate.
On trial is no great national issue, no terrorist gang or grand fraudster. This is the examination of an intimate personal tragedy involving two people. Yet television could boost it with "all the elements of a Hollywood drama, a superstar sporting hero, a beautiful victim and a Valentine's Day killing. This wasn't fiction. This was fact," as one South African current affairs show put it.
The argument for holding trials in public is that justice should be seen to be done. For all the ritual of judicial independence and court procedure, nothing can substitute for the ears and eyes of the world. Hence open galleries, court reporting and public scrutiny. And if court reporting why not court broadcasting? Surely the time has come for justice to enter the 21st century.
I am sure the combination of juries (nowadays almost only in Britain and America) and publicity given to celebrity cases, has removed the sober dignity that should be attached to a trial. The hysteria that surrounded the televised OJ Simpson trial in 1995 showed the pressure that daily broadcasting could put on an entire court.
Justice does not demand infinite openness. It does not get it with certain family and rape cases. The clear light of day is not the same as the ruthless glare of the spotlight. Most crimes are of no public importance. As in Pistorius's case, they arise from a moment of personal madness or cruelty, and are of concern to only a very few people. Judgment is what is required, not a "Hollywood blockbuster". The only wider demand is that judgment be fair. South Africa may feel it can gain by subjecting its judicial system to global scrutiny. I doubt it will turn out that way.
