The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration | Hacker News Reader

The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

atlasobscura.com

71 pointsdashausbass25 comments

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features...

UK court artists are not allowed to sketch in court. They must observe and then leave to sketch from memory (a fact that I was not previously aware of).

Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?

I would say that a picture isn't an exact replica either. The photographer chooses what to photograph at what time and with specific framing and with a particular set of features on the camera. A photographer makes choices just like an illustrator does. So a photographer is still warping a version of events through their mind as well.

One photograph of a person crying or upset could be used to represent then entirety of a trial. Imagine if that one moment is published in a newspaper. The person would be immediately assumed guilty in the court of public opinion.

I agree, but also think that neither is really necessary, courtrooms could have CCTV, that could be archived and made available to people that are involved with the case. A professional photographer or illustrator in a courtroom, now that I think about it, seems bonkers.

This reminded me of an article I read years ago in Spy magazine. It was a collection of cliches from court reporting, lots of different cases where the defendant was described as "emotionless as the guilty verdict was read out".

After about 20 examples of famously (to different degrees) guilty criminals it followed up with another 10 or so where the defendant was later cleared of the crime when new evidence came out, but still they sat "emotionless" as they were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit.

Because one feels imaginary, while the other one feels real. If you see a drawing of an event, it doesn't have nearly the same impact as a picture of it.

The article states that cameras were allowed in the US until the Lindbergh trial, which was the 'trial of the century' of that year. It was a zoo in the courtroom, so the Bar barred cameras. But now, with digital cameras that can operate quietly without a flash in ordinary indoor light, that objection would seem obsolete.

Plus couldn't they institute a lottery system. Offer ten slots for photographers, to avoid a "zoo", but still allow for photography. All photos would be made public, so everyone gets images regardless of news org.

Because no one poses for a courtroom sketch. Just by force of habit, the photographer would be a distraction and jurors would be looking at the camera, smiling, fixing their hair/teeth, and not focusing on the information being presented.

I there any reason to prefer these illustrations over photos, other than "charm"? Something like not recording things that weren't the centre of attention?

many courtrooms do not allow photography

While all the sketching seems less efficient, I'd really rather not have courtroom activities be photographed and used in mass media. Or, images have so much power and I'd hate to see them twisted or misused for someone's personal/political gain later.

Sure, but surely sketches can be just as twisted and misused (e.g. drawing a defendant with a menacing snarl), and even more so given that there's no source of real truth.

Sketches are further removed from reality than photographs, so the viewer would know that this is the artist's interpretation of the event. If you bring a camera and take 100 or 1000 shots of someone, you can pick any one of them to act as the full representation of reality. Look how much people trust publicity photos or photos in ads to be unaltered to see how much faith people put in photography. Also, anyone can be made to look jovial or angry if you take enough photos of them, and the photo is more closely related to reality in the viewer's mind than an illustration.

Kind of related, in Sweden, there's been a murder case in the newspapers the last months where the defendants' heads were blurred in photos during the trial and their names were anonymized. As soon as they were convicted, full photos and names were published. Here the idea is to protect their identities until found guilty. I don't know if this is regulated by law or if it's just a matter of press ethics.

But people seem to inherently understand that the sketch artist controls what you see, the moment they're showing you. They're less aware that photographers do the same thing - most people treat photographs as "objective truth".

Well indeed, I suppose I should have also said "aside from photography being disallowed". Perhaps to phrase another way, why could anyone be against the reintroduction of photography into courtrooms?

I think it's an extension of trying to avoid the effects of "conviction in the court of public opinion". Imagine seeing a coworker on trial on the news.

Or imagine being on trial, declared innocent, but most people just saw the fact you were on trial and recognize you by your picture.

There's also details like having the jury's faces be out there.

Personally I think a lot of this is "solvable", and having video footage in places like the supreme court would make coverage of it a bit easier for places like TV. Say what you will about TV dumbing things down and only taking fragments, having more people pay attention to the judicial system would be a net positive IMO

This sounds like an implicit discussion about semi-secret courts for the pure reason of defending a potentially innocent defendant.

What happens if X is tried for $crime and is found not guilty? Court of public opinion may still see them as guilty, and keep away rental properties, jobs, and social network away from them. And now since communication is in ms across the world, perhaps we ought to come back to this.

I could easily see it being perceived as distracting and leading to different behavior than is explicitly necessary for justice.

Like pauses until camera flashes stop, lawyers grandstanding more, consciously planning grandiose gestures for the purpose of having the picture taken and shared, etc.

Ever been on jury duty for a criminal case?

Most jurors would probably object to having their faces seen in public for concerns of retribution after the trial (and/or influencing during the trial), particularly in the brave new world of facial recognition tech.

I've been learning how to sketch recently (not for courtrooms, just for fun), but something I noticed in the process might be relevant.

When you're sketching, you have to make choices about what's important and what to leave out. That means you have to study the scene pretty closely and pick what to represent. If courtroom sketching works like that, then I could see how having a skilled observer picking out important things to represent could be beneficial. If a particular moment is especially memorable, the sketch might capture and emphasize the drama in a way that a photo wouldn't. A sketch is kind of like the executive summary of a scene, removing noise and focusing in on what seemed important at the time.

This is a bit like scientific illustration, where one has to portrait an archetype representing a whole species, in the form on a perfect individual that has all the important characteristics but doesn't exist and was never directly observed by the artist.

The one of Tom Brady has to be the best of all time. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/tom-brady-courtroom-sketch-m...

I'll add Guy Fieri to the list.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5273e8bc69bedd1614a...

My mom was a judge and she took one of the courtroom illustrations she was in and framed it. I am sure my sister and I will fight over it some day as a family heirloom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com