example of how modern technology and an information-saturated culture are testing centuries-old notions of how juries and judges mete out justice. The issue garnered national attention recently in Baltimore, where five jurors were accused of using a social-networking site to inappropriately discuss the ongoing trial of the city's mayor.Trial by jury in a criminal matter is intended to reach the best possible decision as to the guilt of the defendant(s). It seems to me that the courts should utilize information and communications technology as effectively as possible to inform the jurors and to help them analyze the evidence.
Judges and legal experts are particularly concerned about how technology and culture are affecting jurors and a defendant's right to a fair trial. The Internet has provided easy and instant access to newspaper archives, criminal records, detailed maps, legal opinions and social-networking sites, such as Facebook, all at the anonymous click of a mouse in jurors' homes or on the tiny keyboards of their cellular phones.
The adversarial process of course encourages the prosecuting and defense lawyers to present their evidence using the best available technology. I suspect, however, that they may have a bias toward convincing jurors of the quality of their theses rather than maximizing the information available.
The court would seem to have little incentive to utilize information and communications technology to improve communication with the jurors. Nor do I see courts having any incentive to utilize technology to improve the process of jury deliberation.
It would seem useful for legislative bodies to consider whether the courts are being overly traditional in their failure to use information and communications technology and to consider whether changes in the law would encourage technological improvements to enhance the quality of jury decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment