I have not fully had the opportunity to evaluate the impact of cameras in the courtroom.
— Lance Ito
The American public got to see for themselves every day, all day, how this trial progressed. There's a lot of value in the public being able to see how the system works.
And the American public was able to make up their own mind whether this verdict was a just verdict or not. So I think there's a lot of value in the public being able to see how the system works or doesn't work, so I think there's a definite value there.
If you have a camera in the courtroom, there's no filtering. What you see is what's there.
The problem with not having a camera is that one must trust the analysis of a reporter who's telling you what occurred in the courtroom. You have to take into consideration the filtering effect of that person's own biases.
I know the pundits and the news media have carried a lot of commentary about cameras in the courtroom, and there's a lot of controversy about it as a result of the Simpson case. But I have not had enough time to step back and enough time to evaluate that.
If you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide a certain measure of truth from the public.
And if you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide, I think, a certain measure of truth from the public, and I think that's very important for the American public to know.
Whereas if you have a camera in the courtroom, there's no filtering. What you see is what's there.
