Internet generation lousy jurors: UK
posted at 11:15 am on November 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Lord Chief Justice of Britain says that courts may have to change the way they present information to juries in the age of the Internet. Lord Judge of Draycote said that Internet-proficient young adults don’t like to listen, preferring a more interactive experience in assimilating information, and that they make lousy jurors as a result:
In a speech, Lord Judge of Draycote, the Lord Chief Justice, said it might be better to present information for young jurors on screens because that is how they were used to digesting information.
He said: “Most are technologically proficient. Many get much information from the internet. They consult and refer to it. They are not listening. They are reading. “One potential problem is whether, learning as they do in this way, they will be accustomed, as we were, to listening for prolonged periods.
“Even if they have the ability to endure hours and days of sitting listening, how long would it be before some ask for the information on which they have to make their decision to be provided in forms which adapt to modern technology?["]
This seems rather silly. Television began rewarding shorter attention spans decades ago. Did the jury system collapse as a result? Did courts have to present trials to juries by transforming them into MTV shows? Of course not. It seems that every generation has to have its wits questioned by the generation preceding it based on the technological advances that previous generation provided.
Lord Judge did have a better point about one potentially destructive effect of the Internet. A conviction got overturned in the UK because a juror started researching the case on his Blackberry rather than rely strictly on the courtroom presentation of evidence. Twenty years ago, judges instructed jurors not to read the papers on high-profile cases. Can a juror resist the temptation to Google his case in the off hours of the trial and find unsubstantiated information that could poison the verdict?
In a month, I go off to jury duty for the first time in Minnesota, and for the first time since I’ve been on line. The last time I served, I lived in Orange County and my service was performed in Santa Ana. I didn’t wind up on a jury, but if I did now, I’d have to fight that temptation. I’m certain I could do it, but I’m not certain everyone else would want to fight that temptation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Yes, there is nothing like spending hundreds of thousands dollars on a trial and wasting weeks out of people’s lives and then have to declare a mistrial because some bozo went on the internet.
Blake on November 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Juries are the backbone of American justice. The firewall against government tyrany. Everyone should welcome serving every now and again.
Mr. Joe on November 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Under Obama we won’t need juries. If the person is Republican he’s automatically guilty, if a Democrat, he’s innocent.
zmdavid on November 8, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Court reporters can now with Livenote technology provide real time transcripts of spoken testimony. Maybe jurors of the future can have the daily court transcripts beamed wirelessly to their iPhones for future reference while deliberating. It is a PITA to have the Court Reporter read back testimony to answer a juror’s simple question as to what one of the witnesses said. If they have all the testimony at their fingertips, jurors would be more efficient (and more accurate in their verdicts?).
tommylotto on November 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Answer
OJ Simpson Jury
William Amos on November 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I fought the temptation when I was on jury duty, as well as the temptation to drive by the scene of the crime. It struck me, though, how nobody would know if you gave in. It’s only honor and decency that holds you back.
Luckilly, for most cases there isn’t that much information out there. For something like Scooter Libby and Phil Specter, I don’t know how a juror can avoid it.
MayBee on November 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Juries are the backbone of American justice. The firewall against government tyrany. Everyone should welcome serving every now and again.
Mr. Joe on November 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I see it differently. Here in Ca. there are more cases involving illegal’s. That is a insult to me. Why should I get paid crap, and be on a jury? The gas prices were real high when I got a summons. Our Court is far from my rural town. I had just got my new job. I didn’t and couldn’t afford to any how. One never knows how long it takes to do that. Having to be on one involving an illegal just frosts my tail. We have to pay for those illegals crowding our Jails. Until they start sweeping them up and deporting them. I just cannot do it. it isn’t a welcoming honor. It can make it a inconvenience.
sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Oh, and the short attention span wasn’t a problem at all for us.
CSI had more of an impact.
MayBee on November 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
He should see how they vote for a U.S. President, almost identical to how they pick the next American Idol.
Dr Evil on November 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Answer
OJ Simpson Jury
William Amos on November 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM
That was the most shocking trial. They found him innocent to despise Justice. Left a real bitter taste for me. But, the police and Detectives I feel knew he did it. But they went to far. Marcia Clark and Darren made some errors. No lawyer is perfect. The Defense was a tad of exaggeration. They did have evidence. And he was guilty. But he did have a jury of his peers. They didn’t care he was guilty. They had star struck in their heads. And a hate for the law and the Justice system. I wonder if they can sleep at nights? Probably can with ease. Another case of Just Us. Not Justice.
sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Can’t remember Chris Darden? Is close. Forgot, now OJ was denied a new trial yesterday.
sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Modified to show that the parallels were there long before the outcome of this election.
SAD.
Marine_Bio on November 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Modified to show that the parallels were there long before the outcome of this election.
SAD.
Marine_Bio on November 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
That sure is sad. Thank you Marine_Bio and God Bless you for being in the Military, For Us Citizens. My nephew is a Marine too. Now our Freedom is at a real risk now. I think We the citizens will have to fight as well. I hope not, but don’t look good.
sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
The first defense lawyer to say:
Prosecutions argument ….. FAIL
And gets his client off; that’ll be the death of juries :P
lorien1973 on November 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
This doesn’t really surprise me. Look at how Peggy Joseph took away from Obama’s campaign speeches a promise from him that he would fill her gas tank and pay her mortgage.
ProfessorMiao on November 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
All europeans are a bunch of cowards and dogs specially France and Spain; soon they will be take over by the islamic bastards.
tocoloro on November 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
All I can do is to hope that the juries I pick will be honorable and will take their duties seriously because we cannot sequester everyone and take their phones away. It is also incumbent on lawyers to properly and completely prepare their cases.
HawaiiLwyr on November 8, 2008 at 12:05 PM
True – but you’re forgetting about the impact of Sharia Law. Those who fail to pay their taxes on time, like Joe the Plumber, will face having a hand amputated.
[/sarcasm]
ptet on November 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
“Lord Judge of Draycote”? Sounds like a character in a Conan the Barbarian movie or something.
flipflop on November 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
In a related story, the Lord Judge of Draycote was voted off Arrakis and traded for spice.
whitetop on November 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM
What is more interactive, my pixels or listening to another human being?
Gosh, I don’t know.
Limerick on November 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM
All europeans are a bunch of cowards and dogs specially France and Spain; soon they will be take over by the islamic bastards.
tocoloro on November 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Is why I am afraid for our Country too.
sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM
True – but you’re forgetting about the impact of Sharia Law. Those who fail to pay their taxes on time, like Joe the Plumber, will face having a hand amputated.
[/sarcasm]
ptet on November 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Our US Treasury is teaching Sharia right now. Was in Washington Post. Not sure if credible though. Wouldn’t put it past them.
sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Read the ‘facts’ on dKos.
Read the ‘facts’ on HA.
There seems to be a problem with those square pegs in round holes.
Limerick on November 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Thank you for sharing your reasoned and balanced opinion with us. It obviously is the result of your intimate knowledge of all 450 million Europeans, specially the 105 million Frenchmen and Spaniards (who will soon be take over by the islamic bastards).
factoid on November 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Most jurors are stupid, shallow, bullies in the school yard, etc. Was there ever a point in history when this wasn’t the case?
I once had a domestic violence case in a very PC town. The majority of the jurors argued the woman asked for the beating. They kept mentioning her physical ugliness. Apparently, PC goes out the door when faced with an unattractive woman.
tuffy on November 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I can see Jury duty in legitimate criminal cases. However in the case of civil cases, it usually ticks me off.
We get something like 9 bucks a day. There was a case where some scum sucking bottom feeding ambulance chasing parasticial lawyer sued a homeowner because his client locked himself in the homeowner’s garage WHILE BURGLARIZING THE HOUSE…. The idiots on the jury gave a 6 figure award.
So, while you are getting 9 bucks a day some schmucko ambulance chaser is playing the lawsuit lottery jackpot bingo game.. “If you were injured, I can get you MONEY.. You don’t pay until we win”…
SOrry your honor, I don’t think I’ll make a good juror. The biggest dirtball non paying clients I have were lawyers. A lawyer tried to rip off a disabled relative of ours for ten grand. I was involved in a lawsuit and got ripped off by three lawyers in a row. I was part of a group that managed to get one of two corrupt state supreme court justices thrown off the bench… Any questions your honor??
Oh, by the way, the state senate in our state pushed for a huge pay increase “For the Judges”… Guess what, one of the state senators pushing that is a senior partner in one of the largest slip and fall trial lawyer partnerships in the state.. “Pssst judge.. before this case begins let me remind you who gave you that big raise”
Lawyers like smoke and mirrors and BS. If you want to give the lawyers and judge a coronary just mention the Fully Informed Jurors concept.. Stand clear though because it will get messy when their arteries burst.
cheers
bullseye on November 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Nope. Less efficient. The live time transcripts provided to some attys has not been proof read. The court reporter always has to clean it up. Also, all the questions that were objected to and stricken and the court admonished the jury to disregard would have to be edited out. Also, the transcripts aren’t supposed to be used to replay the entire case which is what some of the jurors would use them for do.
Today, jurors google. Before, they called up their wife’s cousin twice removed who was a cop and got his opinion. Nothing new about jurors not following simple instructions.
Blake on November 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Between my engineering degree and my belief in the death penalty, I have never been put on a jury panel when I get called up for jury service. However, now I live in a state without the death penalty so it should be interesting once I get called again. Once time while a jury panel was being picked in a car accident, I laughted out loud when I found out the person doing the suing had actually rear ended some guy in front of him who was pulled way off the road with a flat tire. Needless to say, I wasn’t picked and someone I knew was. My friend said they didn’t give the idiot a dime. When I took driver’s ed back in the stone ages, they taught us that if you EVER rear end anyone, you are following too close and violating the basic speed law for the driving conditions, no matter how slow or fast you are driving. Sometimes juries do get it right.
karenhasfreedom on November 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I guess the family of a person who was killed through the fault of someone else is not entitled to compensation. The kids can starve while the tortfeasor can go on living his fat comfortable life. Not all lawsuits are frivolous. Not all lawyers are unethical. But thank you for demeaning me and my profession. What great thing do you do to contribute to society?
HawaiiLwyr on November 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Agreed. Tech may interfere or corrupt the process, but not dismantle it.
I think a pervasive amoral value system or relativistic world view has a greater impact on sounds judgment.
locomotivebreath1901 on November 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I’ve only served on a jury once; but have been called quite a few times. Since we live in small town, the jury pool is quite small. Once I got as far as watching the dreadfully boring video for jury duty, then we were all told the case had literally been settled right on the courthouse steps and we could go home.
The case I DID get on was a local case of a guy shooting at a cop; he was charged with attempted murder. After we were told (and TOLD and TOLD) NOT to read the local papers, one guy shows up one morning in the jury room with an uncut version of the local paper. (Yes, they cut out the stories about the case in the papers before putting them in the jury room, seriously). WE were all like “WTH?!” He got his rear kicked off the jury; we couldn’t rush to tell the judge fast enough! He was replaced with an alternate. This was several years ago, before email, google, and the internet made big inroads to our local population, so we still had only the local papers and our gossipy friends to rely on for outside info temptations.
I recall going to an older friend’s house near the courthouse for lunch, since she lived about cross corner from the courthouse then. I had to keep my mouth SHUT about anything I heard; but I always wondered about the other jurors. Did they give in to the temptations? The guy was convicted and sent away for quite a few years, and if an appeal was filed, it was denied. What would have happened if this trial had happened now, I wonder? Would I have had the strength to stay off the internet during the trial? I don’t know, and hope to never find out (although with our small jury pool anything is possible, I suppose).
indie_helper on November 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Spot on…. today’s young are media savvy but logic and communication stupid.
MNDavenotPC on November 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Apparently, the “internet generation” makes lousy voters also.
With indoctrinated young voters, and 12 mil. illegals to be made citizens by the “False One” – it looks like a rough road ahead.
CertainVictory on November 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Lawyers want impressionable and emotional people on juries. They don’t want independent, careful thinkers who will listen attentively and make up their own minds. Where any sort of technology or physical principle is involved, they don’t want someone who understands it; they want someone whose beliefs they can establish.
I’m not as sure as I once was that isolating a jury is the right thing to do.
njcommuter on November 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Uh, my example wasn’t about that, it was about a guy suing a homeowner because he locked himself in the garage. The lawyer ended up with 6 figures. The jurors got 9 bucks a day.. How is that fair?
.
Agreed
OK, I know I’m dealing with a small sample, but the overwhelming number of lawyers I’ve met ARE unethical. Sorry, but when you run into it time and time again, you start to see a pattern. The current way that jurors are paid really irritates me. The “We can get you money” ads on television irritate me. The lawyer legislators who have mucked up our constituion (ie BarryO talking about changing from a negative to a positive consitution irritates me). The corruption I have seen with my own eyes irriates me.
If you are one of the honest lawyers out there and aren’t abusing the jury system as a means of finding indentured servants to grab 6 figure settelments, If you aren’t a lawyer-legislator who creates increasingly byzantine laws so that lawyers are required, if you reject frivilous lawsuits then I apologize and applaud you.
As far as what I contribute let’s say I won’t post my resume here but I can look in the mirror each day and be more than comfortable.
bullseye on November 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM
The “internet generation” is no less capable of serving jury duty. This is just old people being cantankerous. They’re just standing there shaking their hands at “those kids!” with “their music” and “their internet” and “whatever we didn’t have in MY day!”
Seriously, I read at least two articles that break down to this every day. It’s sad. You’ve got old men scared by video games, scared by the internet, scared by cultural changes caused by technology, and generally confused by things they intentionally ignored finally entering their world in a way they can no longer ignore.
Until they pass laws or set policy to back up their idiot ideas I’m in favor of ignoring them. Eventually they’ll be replaced by a new crop that will be fine until something else crops up that they don’t understand. I’m sure my generation is no less immune to it then there’s is… we’re just still too new to be confused by the “new” thing.
Karmashock on November 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I wish I could agree with you.
Dark-Star on November 8, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Whether or not a juror can resist the temptation is beside the point. Jurors are not supposed to delve into media and the principle is the same whether or not the technology changes.
aengus on November 8, 2008 at 9:57 PM
The internet generation are the offspring of the weakest generation.(AKA The baby boom generation.)Collectively I do not expect much from them.
To much TV. To much time on the internet, terrible public education and never having to deal with real problems and avoidance of consequences.
DVPTexFla on November 9, 2008 at 6:06 AM
So, Ed, I guess that pretty much puts the kibosh on the whole liveblogging the trial idea.
eeyore on November 9, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I sure hope your a democrat,if not I think you may be going to a “RE education camp”.
^ 5
ColdWarrior57 on November 9, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Comment pages: