Cameras are on private residences, buildings and capture silly, action-packed, serious and, sometimes, regretful moments at athletic stadiums.

So, why aren’t they in courtrooms in Pennsylvania as they are in many other states?

It’s a question that state Rep. Jamie Flick, R-South Williamsport, representing the 83rd House district of Lycoming/Union counties, said would be answered by changing the law.

Last year, Flick introduced legislation that would allow video and audio recording of criminal and civil court proceedings in this state, with exceptions.

It’s known as House Bill 1397 and it sits in the House Judiciary Committee for consideration, said Flick, who stopped by the Sun-Gazette to meet with the editorial board to update his latest legislation among other topics.

In a stop by the Sun-Gazette editorial board to go over his pending legislation, Flick pointed out the protections cameras can offer and why he has focused on getting the bill passed into law.

Impetus to expose corruption

In the early 2000s, two former Pennsylvania judges orchestrated a scheme to send children to for-profit jails in exchange for payments, known nationally as the “Kids for Cash” scandal. They were ordered to pay more than $200 million to those victimized by this high-profile misconduct.

The motivation behind this legislation comes from past transgressions like “Kids for Cash,” Flick said, as well as his own experiences in the courtroom as a pro se litigant.

Today, Pennsylvania is one of just five states that do not allow cameras in courtrooms. The other four states are Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

Flick has salient arguments as to their benefits, much of it based on his own experience in family court as he went through a divorce.

Chiefly, he said, a transcript is not enough.

Audio and video tell a clear story of the proceedings, of how something is said, and physical gestures that communicate so much more.”

Words can’t fully capture or express a judge’s intonation at the moment, or his or her expression, or how he or she responds or acts in his or her official duty in the courtroom.

Transcripts also may not always be precise or accurate, although most court reporters endeavor to provide the most accuracy as possible, but Flick gave an example of where the transcript might present differently than what a camera with audio running could capture.

There may be a judge who tells an attorney, ‘You could have raised that issue six months ago,’ as part of a legal proceeding, he said.

The statement would have been preserved for the court record, but it would depend on how the judge said it. The judge could have calmly gave the statement, or he or she could have said it like this: ‘YOU could have RAISED that issue six months Ago!’ loudly, and pointing a finger, or as Flick said – “foaming at the mouth.”

In a sense, cameras could target “corruption” in the courts, he said.

Cameras in the courtroom also would more accurately reveal the demeanor and presence of an individual known in court as a Guardian ad Litem (GAL), a court-appointed individual who is supposed to represent the best interests of a child or incapacitated person during legal proceedings.

“If we had cameras in the courtroom, somebody might have known who that GAL was,” Flick said.

Recently, he said, a GAL in Lycoming County, was giving reports to the judges favoring mothers in exchange for sex, Flick alleged. Cameras in the courtroom could have helped expose him before he “hurt more kids,” he said.

Capturing images and audio could also lead family court judges to take the steps to reverse some of their decisions, Flick said.

Additionally, cameras in court would not only be beneficial in divorce or custody cases, but it would help the voter in the next judicial election, he said, by capturing the activity in the case, including the actions of the court personnel, including the judge.

“You can see and weigh in on how those judges act,” Flick said.

On the flip side, cameras in the courtroom would also protect the judges in a sense by revealing how good a job they’re doing, he said.

They could provide evidence to show how the lawyers in the courtroom are acting, thereby helping a person to determine whether they would hire the attorney to represent them in a court of law, he noted.

Cameras could help the viewer to decide whether they liked the attorney based on demeanor and method of displaying legal skills, Flick observed.

Such legislation could be extended to include whether to study the possibility of the bodycam footage on Children and Youth workers during the interview processes.

There are exclusions in Flick’s bill to ensure that children would not be on camera or victims who should not be seen or witnesses. Exceptions listed in include prohibiting the recording of any child witness and any witness who is alleged to have been the victim of a sexual assault or domestic violence. Doing so protects the privacy of these specific witnesses, who often provide confidential, intimate details of horrific acts against them.

Today, Pennsylvania is one of only four states that do not have cameras in the courtroom.

If nothing more regarding HB 1397, Flick said he is hopeful to get a handful of counties that might volunteer to try it.

“It’s important to provide as much transparency and accountability as possible when it comes to the Commonwealth’s judicial system,” he said.

“The objective is to deter dishonest or corrupt behavior by all parties involved in proceedings.”

“I recently polled my constituents regarding this issue, and there is overwhelming support to move forward and make this needed change to our judicial system,” he said.