Politics & Power Quote by Lance Ito

Lance Ito defends transparency by insisting that removing cameras from courtrooms conceals a real, if partial, truth from the public. He points to something more than voyeurism: the idea that democratic legitimacy depends on citizens seeing how justice is done, not just being told about it after the fact. Cameras provide an unfiltered window into the texture of trials — the cadence of testimony, the complexity of rules, the strain on witnesses, the grind of objections and sidebars — details that vanish in headlines or evening summaries. When people can watch proceedings themselves, they can judge credibility, competence, and fairness with their own eyes, rather than rely on intermediaries to frame the narrative.

Ito’s stance carries the weight of his experience in the O.J. Simpson trial, an unprecedented media event that drew both fascination and condemnation. Critics argued that cameras turned the courtroom into a stage, rewarding theatrics, pressurizing witnesses, and distracting jurors. Ito’s language acknowledges that paradox. He speaks of a “certain measure of truth,” not the whole truth. Cameras do not purify a process; they complicate it. But he suggests the alternative is worse: without public sightlines, the justice system risks becoming an insider’s realm, producing outcomes that outsiders must take on faith.

The deeper claim is about accountability. Open justice guards against abuse, educates the public on burdens of proof and procedural safeguards, and contextualizes verdicts that might otherwise look inexplicable. Secrecy, even when well intentioned, breeds suspicion. A camera can distort behavior, but it also deters misconduct and exposes weakness. The task, then, is to manage visibility rather than suppress it — to set rules that protect jurors, victims, and due process while preserving public access. Ito’s argument holds that a free society tolerates the messiness of seeing itself, because the price of blindness is higher than the imperfections of sight.