2009/10/25

Micro Blogging and Justice

Just read this article http://bit.ly/4Cslkv about jurors using twitter during a trial and pondering...

Historically, trials have relied on a myth of an idealised jury that exists in issolation from the rest of the world, mearly absorbing information presented by the two sides within a court room and reaching a decision based only on that.

Within that, the defense and prosecution advocates have needed to become adept at reading a jury's mood/thoughts to pitch their case acordingly. The public are often also left bemused sometimes with the decisions juries reach - and as 'justice must be seen to be done', that's not ideal.

So, what if juries were _required_ to record their thoughts publically during a trial? Sure, there would be issues of honesty, some people would feel intimidated by it and it would open up many issues around jury tampering, re-trials etc too so it's not simple, but I can see advantages too.

Both sides of the case would be able to accertain openly if their points have been convincing, the public could see the reasoning behind jury decisions (that's assuming there is reason I know).

OK Probably not the right answer on balance :), but I do think the Internet and ubiquitous access is a game changer for the mechanisms we have relied on for 'justice' historically and we need to recognize that and not ignore it - it might mean that every jury needs locking away and stripping of all modern devices, but I think there's a way to embrace the new landscape rathe than deny it - just can't see quite how yet. Any ideas anyone? :)

-- Post From My iPhone

No comments:

Post a Comment