News broke this morning that the judge who will hear the murder trial for an OKC pharmacist, who shot and killed a person in his pharmacy during a robbery attempt, will allow cameras in the courtroom. I responded to a Tweet on the subject that the decision was not a good one, in my opinion. I was asked why on my Facebook page. Here was my response:

First, I think it is an unnecessary distraction for the jury.

Second, this case will be perceived as a case involving racial prejudices (I don’t think it should be) and my fear is it will excite people and encourage “picking a side” for the wrong reasons. Video can over sensationalize things and I don’t think this case needs to be over sensationalized. I could see taping the trial to be used for documentary purposes AFTER a verdict, but not for news channels use for daily news stories after the tape is edited, etc. 

The question becomes, where do we draw the line for cameras in the courtroom? Why this case, but not the next one?

Bottom line: I don’t see the VALUE in having the cameras in the courtroom when weighed against the potential negative consequences.

What do you think?