Monday, March 23, 2009
When Jurors Seek Evidence Online
This is an interesting response to an article about the effect of jurors tweeting, Facebooking, Googleing, FriendFeeding, Digging while on Duty. I think the author makes a very vailid point about the need for the legal world to adapt to constantly changing and developing technology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As my academic interests lie in the structure and legitimacy of the criminal justice system, this article was particularly interesting to me.
I am already wary of the use of juries during trials. The right to an unbiased jury is a part and parcel of the right to a fair trial by jury - yet an unbiased jury with no legal training is close to impossible to create.
There have been countless reports of jury members dozing off, playing crossword puzzles, reading novels and performing other activities that would distract from their attention to the trial. These people are called on by the government to serve, and begrudge being forced into a duty where they are paid less to get bored.
More importantly, jurors are swayed by personal histories, physical appearances and other such factors that are not meant to influence a court's decision. Justice should be blind! Jurors don't have the legal experience to rule these things out and pay attention to only the facts. In a study conducted about jury-judge verdicts, in most of the instances in which the jury and judge disagreed, the judge imposed a harsher sentence. Though there is not direct evidence of this, it is likely that judges do so because of their ability to not let their emotions get in the way. They pay attention to provable legal facts.
What about a jury full of lawyers who don't have a vested interest in the case and are under oath to be unbiased? Do you think this might help solve the plethora of problems to any degree?
I forgot my point in the process of writing this! Here it is: The internet and techonology are only going to make a flawed system even worse. Not only do they provide as distractions, but powerful research tools potentially swaying opinion. Only that which is heard in trial should be applied to a jury's ultimate decision.
While I totally agree that the internet does add a distraction, I feel that it can also be used in a constructive manor for jurors for instance allowing them too quickly and easily research past precedents or background information of the case. Also what I believe the author was trying to portray and the point I agree with is the simple fact that the internet and technology is not going to go away, it’s only going to continue to expand its presence in our daily lives and for that reason the legal system must adapt to grow with technology rather than ignore it.
I agree with the part of the article that says that the legal system has to keep up with a changing world. Ignoring it could cause disaster - jurors are not supposed to know about case precedents or background information on the case. In fact, they are required to base their decisions only in the facts presented in the courtroom. The path to a fair trial is to allow as little outside information to reach the jury as possible. The legal system does need to keep up with technology, but not by encouraging it. Rather, they should take steps to restrict and control its use to ensure that justice is truly blind.
Post a Comment