I registered because of this article. Both sides of the argument are not only valid but make perfect sense.
On one hand we have the wealth of knowledge of The Internet that could help any juror come to a much more reasoned decision than they would be able to one their own. Not only that but as time progresses more and more people will be banking their knowledge on The Internet rather than keeping it stored in their head. Most people on this site do this already, as well as most tech orientated websites. If we do not know something then we just google it, look it up on wikipedia, search relevant websites etc... As we as a species become more and more reliant on the Internet we will memorize less and focus more on the abilities of finding the information needed. If we suddenly take that ability away from people not only will we have a group of the only people that could not get out of jury duty, but they will be a disabled group not able to get out of jury duty.
The other side of the argument is equally valid. Admissibility of Evidence and prevention of outside biased sources from contaminating the vacuum of the jury. As someone pointed out many jurors would just rely on the court of public opinion to make their decisions. Lets not forget the centuries of trial and error to used to create the system we have today. It is obviously not perfect but it took centuries to get it to this point, to start over now would be much worse than keeping the system in place.
The beauty of this article is both sides are absolutely correct. We use tech in our daily lives and to take that away would place us at a disadvantage. But the court system cannot be radically changed, because there is new technology.
However there is a solution, looking at the purpose of the vacuum that jurors are kept in along with why they would need the 'Net provides an obvious solution.
In a criminal trial limit the 'Net to what is not newer than the date of the crime.
In a civil case limit it to the date that papers were served.
This keeps out all information that could be about the trial, as well as public opinion about the trial.
Would it cost money? Sure but it would be cheaper than jailing innocent people.
Would it allow outside opinions into the case? Sure but no more so than what is already available at the time, anything that is on the internet at the date of the crime, or when papers are served could have reasonably already been viewed by any juror.
If my hypothesis of banked knowledge is correct this would be an even better solution than what is offered now. Jurors would have access to the worlds combined knowledge but be even less tainted by current public opinion.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sinrtb.
Re: Evidence admissibility
On one hand we have the wealth of knowledge of The Internet that could help any juror come to a much more reasoned decision than they would be able to one their own. Not only that but as time progresses more and more people will be banking their knowledge on The Internet rather than keeping it stored in their head. Most people on this site do this already, as well as most tech orientated websites. If we do not know something then we just google it, look it up on wikipedia, search relevant websites etc... As we as a species become more and more reliant on the Internet we will memorize less and focus more on the abilities of finding the information needed. If we suddenly take that ability away from people not only will we have a group of the only people that could not get out of jury duty, but they will be a disabled group not able to get out of jury duty.
The other side of the argument is equally valid. Admissibility of Evidence and prevention of outside biased sources from contaminating the vacuum of the jury. As someone pointed out many jurors would just rely on the court of public opinion to make their decisions. Lets not forget the centuries of trial and error to used to create the system we have today. It is obviously not perfect but it took centuries to get it to this point, to start over now would be much worse than keeping the system in place.
The beauty of this article is both sides are absolutely correct. We use tech in our daily lives and to take that away would place us at a disadvantage. But the court system cannot be radically changed, because there is new technology.
However there is a solution, looking at the purpose of the vacuum that jurors are kept in along with why they would need the 'Net provides an obvious solution.
In a criminal trial limit the 'Net to what is not newer than the date of the crime.
In a civil case limit it to the date that papers were served.
This keeps out all information that could be about the trial, as well as public opinion about the trial.
Would it cost money? Sure but it would be cheaper than jailing innocent people.
Would it allow outside opinions into the case? Sure but no more so than what is already available at the time, anything that is on the internet at the date of the crime, or when papers are served could have reasonably already been viewed by any juror.
If my hypothesis of banked knowledge is correct this would be an even better solution than what is offered now. Jurors would have access to the worlds combined knowledge but be even less tainted by current public opinion.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sinrtb.
Submit a story now.