Could the Internet Kill the Jury System?

[Ayaan]

In a lecture published on Friday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised major concerns about the use of the internet by jurors.

He said: "If the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial... the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop."

Lord Judge said some jurors had used the internet to research a rape case.

Rest of article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11796648

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maroons.

[klr]

In a lecture published on Friday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised major concerns about the use of the internet by jurors.

He said: "If the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial... the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop."

Lord Judge said some jurors had used the internet to research a rape case.

Rest of article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11796648

I'm surprised it's taken so long for the judiciary to wake up to this ... or to just speak out about it. The idea of sequestering people for weeks/months on end in this age of all-pervasive communications is looking increasingly untenable.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In a lecture published on Friday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised major concerns about the use of the internet by jurors.

He said: "If the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial... the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop."

Lord Judge said some jurors had used the internet to research a rape case.

Rest of article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11796648

I'm surprised it's taken so long for the judiciary to wake up to this ... or to just speak out about it. The idea of sequestering people for weeks/months on end in this age of all-pervasive communications is looking increasingly untenable.

Run them through a metal detector, take away their toys. We've had telephones since Pen was middle-aged and we didn't allow the jurors to yap with whomever they wished on them. No real difference here.

[Pappa]

In a lecture published on Friday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised major concerns about the use of the internet by jurors.

He said: "If the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial... the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop."

Lord Judge said some jurors had used the internet to research a rape case.

Rest of article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11796648

I'm surprised it's taken so long for the judiciary to wake up to this ... or to just speak out about it. The idea of sequestering people for weeks/months on end in this age of all-pervasive communications is looking increasingly untenable.

Well, they have to trust that the jurors will try to steer clear of the media. They really should be using more reporting restrictions in high-profile or delicate cases anyway. It's usually the norm to have a blanket ban on reporting of rape cases.

[Ayaan]

In a lecture published on Friday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised major concerns about the use of the internet by jurors.

He said: "If the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial... the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop."

Lord Judge said some jurors had used the internet to research a rape case.

Rest of article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11796648

I'm surprised it's taken so long for the judiciary to wake up to this ... or to just speak out about it. The idea of sequestering people for weeks/months on end in this age of all-pervasive communications is looking increasingly untenable.

That's what I was thinking. The only way to do it would be to search every juror for cell phones, or any internet-capable device, and then just to be sure, sequester them some place where there is no Internet service. However, I don't know where that would be - the hospital 'Zilla was in recently has WiFi.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, they have to trust that the jurors will try to steer clear of the media. They really should be using more reporting restrictions in high-profile or delicate cases anyway. It's usually the norm to have a blanket ban on reporting of rape cases.

But that story is about a woman who posted details on Facebook and was asking people for advice. Not the media, Joe and Joan Six-pack.

[Pappa]

In a lecture published on Friday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised major concerns about the use of the internet by jurors.

He said: "If the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial... the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop."

Lord Judge said some jurors had used the internet to research a rape case.

Rest of article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11796648

I'm surprised it's taken so long for the judiciary to wake up to this ... or to just speak out about it. The idea of sequestering people for weeks/months on end in this age of all-pervasive communications is looking increasingly untenable.

That's what I was thinking. The only way to do it would be to search every juror for cell phones, or any internet-capable device, and then just to be sure, sequester them some place where there is no Internet service. However, I don't know where that would be - the hospital 'Zilla was in recently has WiFi.

I don't think it would be viable to ban communications. It would be better to punish those who break the law heavily, so jurors know not to breach them. When I was on a jury, it was made very explicit to us how serious the matter was. The case had limited reporting in the media (due to reporting restrictions), but I was careful to never read the articles.

[Pappa]

Well, they have to trust that the jurors will try to steer clear of the media. They really should be using more reporting restrictions in high-profile or delicate cases anyway. It's usually the norm to have a blanket ban on reporting of rape cases.

But that story is about a woman who posted details on Facebook and was asking people for advice. Not the media, Joe and Joan Six-pack.

Then she should be prosecuted, as it's illegal to do so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think it would be viable to ban communications. It would be better to punish those who break the law heavily, so jurors know not to breach them. When I was on a jury, it was made very explicit to us how serious the matter was. The case had limited reporting in the media (due to reporting restrictions), but I was careful to never read the articles.

What's wrong with taking their toys, please?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, they have to trust that the jurors will try to steer clear of the media. They really should be using more reporting restrictions in high-profile or delicate cases anyway. It's usually the norm to have a blanket ban on reporting of rape cases.

But that story is about a woman who posted details on Facebook and was asking people for advice. Not the media, Joe and Joan Six-pack.

Then she should be prosecuted, as it's illegal to do so.

se·ques·ter (s-kwstr)
v. se·ques·tered, se·ques·ter·ing, se·ques·ters
v.tr.
1. To cause to withdraw into seclusion.
2. To remove or set apart; segregate. See Synonyms at isolate.
3. Law
a. To take temporary possession of (property) as security against legal claims.
b. To requisition and confiscate (enemy property).
v.intr. Chemistry
To undergo sequestration.
[Middle English sequestren, from Old French, from Latin sequestrre, to give up for safekeeping, from Latin sequester, depositary, trustee; see sekw-1 in Indo-European roots.]

[klr]

My point is not so much that it's not technically possible to shut people off - obviously it is, given the will - but that in this day in age, it's far more of an imposition to do this to people than it used to be, to the point that it's not really a runner. Stringent enforcement of standards and behaviour is the key IMHO.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My point is not so much that it's not technically possible to shut people off - obviously it is, given the will - but that in this day in age, it's far more of an imposition to do this to people than it used to be, to the point that it's not really a runner. Stringent enforcement of standards and behaviour is the key IMHO.

The imposition needs to be balanced against the fact that someone's life may be at stake here. BFD if you don't get to tweet for a while.

[Pappa]

I don't think it would be viable to ban communications. It would be better to punish those who break the law heavily, so jurors know not to breach them. When I was on a jury, it was made very explicit to us how serious the matter was. The case had limited reporting in the media (due to reporting restrictions), but I was careful to never read the articles.

What's wrong with taking their toys, please?

Most juries in the UK go home at the end of the day so they can use their phones there, but also they do take your phones off you while you're in the jury room, as there is no communication allowed with the outside world while you are deliberating.

[klr]

My point is not so much that it's not technically possible to shut people off - obviously it is, given the will - but that in this day in age, it's far more of an imposition to do this to people than it used to be, to the point that it's not really a runner. Stringent enforcement of standards and behaviour is the key IMHO.

The imposition needs to be balanced against the fact that someone's life may be at stake here. BFD if you don't get to tweet for a while.

That I have no problem with at all, but then I despise tweeting anyway. It's more the incidental restriction on communications that have nothing to do with the trial, but are otherwise crucial for the juror on a personal level.