Video Mediated Communication in a Courtroom

Have you ever thought about the use of video mediated communication in court? VMC nowadays is quite often in use but is it a good idea?

In contrast with face-to-face communication during VMC a witness, does not stay personally in front of jury but jury can see this person in a TV.

A witness while testify should be provided with safe and comfortable environment. VMC is used to prevent (to separate) a witness of the situation that the victim and offender are in the same room and can see each other. In that, circumstances a witness may feel uncomfortable, scared, and stressed. Moreover, a person who testifies in court may decide that will not tell all the truth.

I agree that two-way camera pointed out by Danielle is a very good idea but I will rather say that we should use more than two cameras. I will propose three or even four cameras. First one showing a witness, second showing a jury, third showing a judge, and fourth (in some circumstances) showing an offender. I think that the audience should not see a witness. Moreover, a witness should not only see those people but s/he should also see whole courtroom. A witness testimony should be recorded in a separate room but within the court. The jury and the judge should see whole witness not only his or her face. It is because in VMC there is no personal contact and lack of body language that is very important. When people cannot use the body gesture, their acting is less effective and accurate (Argyle, 1988). That is why the jury should see whole person in order to understand his or her more effectively.

I would also say that the idea of blurring the witness face should be available. In some circumstances when a witness is aware that s/he cannot be recognize it may lead to decrease a stress level and testimony may be