So cut a person off from the world entirely? What if they get a really important call? How will they find out? We already have a problem where smart people don't want to be jurors because it sucks so bad. Instead, only the dregs of society end up as jurors, and that results in a great deal of injustice. I say, why can't a juror have his phone? So what if he was talking to people? If it's not an Al Capone situation with crooked or coerced jurors, why should a juror be cut off from the world? We're already in a position where jurors aren't deciding based purely on the evidence, so what difference does it really make?
I think I see what's coming now, and I'm sad I didn't see it before. In the relatively near future, advances in technology are going to completely break our justice system in the same way that card counting broke Black Jack. If we don't overhaul the whole thing to take into account realities of the rapidly changing world, we will see an exponentially increasing rate of injustices carried out. This will not be injustice carried out by cruelty of intent, but simply the result of applying an antiquated system to a world with which it is no longer compatible.
Truer words have never been spoken. Joe, as a lawyerly type, where do you weigh in on this phenomenon? As the ability to access information increases, how can we block a jury's access?
Take away their phones and blackberries.
There are a couple of problems with that. If you collect them, do you keep them for the entirety of a lengthy trial? It might not be a burden to the jury if phones and blackberries are taken away for a trial that lasts for less than a day, but anything longer would be very burdensome. Also, even if you kept their phones and blackberries for the entirety of a lengthy trial, or put up a Faraday Cage around the Courthouse, the jurors still have access to the internet at home, unless they are sequestered for the whole thing, and sequestration is not something that happens very often. Do you take away their home internet access for the entirety of the trial?
It used to be that you could admonish them not to talk with family and friends and not read the paper for accounts of the trial. That was an imperfect solution as well, because you could never really be sure that they were telling the truth when they said that they hadn't read the paper or talked to anyone, but the potential harm from the newspaper and conversations with family and friends is dwarfed by the internet.
Maglites can die in a fire. My friend got me a MiniMaglite AA for a gift, I dropped it once and it exploded. All the guts flew out and I couldn't make it work again. I submit that a Maglite is useless as a bludgeon if it stops working after you bash someone's head in with it.
That's odd. I've had the same Mini-Maglite since I was 14, and the only things that have ever broken or gone wrong with it were bulbs and batteries - Make no mistake, I don't treat this thing with undue kindness, over the years it's been thrashed silly - Dropped over a 50 foot cliff, in one instance. When we reached the bottom along the walking trail, I went to look for it, and found it lying about 3 feet away from where it hit the ground, though the light had gone out - But once I replaced the bulb with the spare in the tail-cap, worked just fine, the only lasting effect being a gouge in the finish from where it hit a rock. Being in the scouts, I've seen many similar stories of Maglite torture(With Maglites of all sizes being the Australian scouts torch of choice, It's not surprising), and yet I could count on one hand the number of times I've heard of one being broken.
So cut a person off from the world entirely? What if they get a really important call? How will they find out? We already have a problem where smart people don't want to be jurors because it sucks so bad. Instead, only the dregs of society end up as jurors, and that results in a great deal of injustice. I say, why can't a juror have his phone? So what if he was talking to people? If it's not an Al Capone situation with crooked or coerced jurors, why should a juror be cut off from the world? We're already in a position where jurors aren't deciding based purely on the evidence, so what difference does it really make?
I think I see what's coming now, and I'm sad I didn't see it before. In the relatively near future, advances in technology are going to completely break our justice system in the same way that card counting broke Black Jack. If we don't overhaul the whole thing to take into account realities of the rapidly changing world, we will see an exponentially increasing rate of injustices carried out. This will not be injustice carried out by cruelty of intent, but simply the result of applying an antiquated system to a world with which it is no longer compatible.
The thing is, I don't think the system has ever worked perfectly. I mean, really, can we reasonably expect just anyone to be able to separate themselves from their innate biases? It's really a pie-in-the-sky idea as it is.
How about a panel of judges instead of a jury of peers? Or professional jurors, rather than Joe Six-Pack? I know, fascism and all that, but still, that's what would make the justice system function as intended, right?
The thing is, I don't think the system has ever worked perfectly. I mean, really, can we reasonably expect just anyone to be able to separate themselves from their innate biases? It's really a pie-in-the-sky idea as it is.
I'm not talking about working perfectly, I'm talking about working at all. It's never been perfect, but without drastic changes soon, technology will make it completely broken.
The thing is, I don't think the system has ever worked perfectly. I mean, really, can we reasonably expect just anyone to be able to separate themselves from their innate biases? It's really a pie-in-the-sky idea as it is.
I'm not talking about working perfectly, I'm talking about working at all. It's never been perfect, but without drastic changes soon, technology will make it completely broken.
Unless people just rise to the occasion and take it seriously. I am actually bummed that I have never had jury duty.
The thing is, I don't think the system has ever worked perfectly. I mean, really, can we reasonably expect just anyone to be able to separate themselves from their innate biases? It's really a pie-in-the-sky idea as it is.
I'm not talking about working perfectly, I'm talking about working at all. It's never been perfect, but without drastic changes soon, technology will make it completely broken.
Unless people just rise to the occasion and take it seriously. I am actually bummed that I have never had jury duty.
Trust me, it's not glorious.
In my grand jury service, at least 6 people didn't get it. They kept arguing about unrelated facts and "what if" scenarios that had no bearing on the case, and they often voted based on opinion rather than fact. Another 12 were pretty quiet. The last 5 of us actually knew what the hell was going on, and argued with the 6 idiots.
In my grand jury service, at least 6 people didn't get it. They kept arguing about unrelated facts and "what if" scenarios that had no bearing on the case, and they often voted based on opinion rather than fact. Another 12 were pretty quiet. The last 5 of us actually knew what the hell was going on, and argued with the 6 idiots.
I'd still like to partake in this.
I had 3 chances to do jury duty but every time the case got canceled. : (
I was summoned for jury duty a couple months back and it was one of the worst experiences of my life. The whole process was pathetic and unstructured and if I ever get summoned again I will simply not show up and take the fine instead.
I had a chance for (Nassau, NY) county jury duty just once about five years ago, but they filled their list before they got to me. Just yesterday, I received some material from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of NY. It's a juror qualification questionnaire for the US District Court in Brooklyn. I have to fill it out and mail it back pretty soon. Has anyone else ever received a notice like this, let alone served as a juror at a District level?
I'm chillin' in jury duty right now. Seems like most of the people are not using Internets. There are two seating areas. One with TVs on and one with TVs off. All but me and this one business lady are watching TV. She asked me "they said there's wifi, right?" There is, but it is filtered to block pr0n. We are seated at the only two tables, which only have four seats each.. There is a row of public shared computers that nobody is using. I say maybe 50 people here so far with more coming in a steady stream. Nobody has joined us to compute so far. If you take this as a statistical sample, then only 2/50 of the population of the US live on the Internet. This is NYC. So think about those numbers when you wonder why politicians and companies still don't give a shit about what the Internets has to say. We are still the minority by a lot.
I thought we had another Internet person for a second, but it was actually someone mistaking the business lady for being the person in charge, and not just another juror.
Just spoted a woman with an iPad and three guys reading on smartphones. Another dude has the free newspaper, but he stopped reading it. One old guy with the real newspaper.
And we just got the third member of the table club! He's got TWO iPhones.
They do not allow you to use a cellphone, even a smartphone, in the jury room. You have to go outside and use it then come back through the metal detectors again.
But computers are ok. Tablets are also ok. The phone is a computer and the computer is a phone. Apparently any computing device is ok as long as it isn't in the shape of a phone.
They do not allow you to use a cellphone, even a smartphone, in the jury room. You have to go outside and use it then come back through the metal detectors again.
But computers are ok. Tablets are also ok. The phone is a computer and the computer is a phone. Apparently any computing device is ok as long as it isn't in the shape of a phone.
So they clearly not only do not understand that pretty-much every electronic device a person carries these days is a computer, but also that things not shaped like phones can communicate JUST LIKE PHONES CAN!
So, I can use my cell-modem on my laptop, which has a webcam, microphone, and calling capabilities, but I can't use a "cell phone." Awesome.
I carry my Canon into the courthouse regularly. I seldom carry it into the court room. That's where the judge is in charge -- and can even override the first amendment. Fucking judges.
In the video Jonathan Lippman brags about how recent jury reforms give us Internet access in the jury rooms. That means these rules were made during the times of the Internet.
I even befriended a police officer who somehow got stuck with jury duty. Crazy! His Slingbox isn't working on wifi. My best guess is that the porn filter is blocking it.
We also had to fill out an anonymous bubble sheet survey, which asked us for age, race and gender. Pretty sure that is to collect data on the demographic makeup of juries.
Odds are that I'm just going to be sitting here until they let us go. Could be all week
So the court Internet doesn't block reddit, imgur, or youtube. It does block quickmeme for some reason. If I tethered, I could get all the prons. But who wants pron on jury duty?
Comments
I think I see what's coming now, and I'm sad I didn't see it before. In the relatively near future, advances in technology are going to completely break our justice system in the same way that card counting broke Black Jack. If we don't overhaul the whole thing to take into account realities of the rapidly changing world, we will see an exponentially increasing rate of injustices carried out. This will not be injustice carried out by cruelty of intent, but simply the result of applying an antiquated system to a world with which it is no longer compatible.
It used to be that you could admonish them not to talk with family and friends and not read the paper for accounts of the trial. That was an imperfect solution as well, because you could never really be sure that they were telling the truth when they said that they hadn't read the paper or talked to anyone, but the potential harm from the newspaper and conversations with family and friends is dwarfed by the internet.
How about a panel of judges instead of a jury of peers? Or professional jurors, rather than Joe Six-Pack? I know, fascism and all that, but still, that's what would make the justice system function as intended, right?
In my grand jury service, at least 6 people didn't get it. They kept arguing about unrelated facts and "what if" scenarios that had no bearing on the case, and they often voted based on opinion rather than fact. Another 12 were pretty quiet. The last 5 of us actually knew what the hell was going on, and argued with the 6 idiots.
I can't imagine what trial jury must be like.
I had 3 chances to do jury duty but every time the case got canceled. : (
Just yesterday, I received some material from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of NY.
It's a juror qualification questionnaire for the US District Court in Brooklyn. I have to fill it out and mail it back pretty soon.
Has anyone else ever received a notice like this, let alone served as a juror at a District level?
And we just got the third member of the table club! He's got TWO iPhones.
You can tell how exciting this is.
But computers are ok. Tablets are also ok. The phone is a computer and the computer is a phone. Apparently any computing device is ok as long as it isn't in the shape of a phone.
So, I can use my cell-modem on my laptop, which has a webcam, microphone, and calling capabilities, but I can't use a "cell phone." Awesome.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/nyregion/03critic.html
You are supposed to be able to download the video here, but it's 404.
http://www.nycourts.gov/youth/learn_about_courts/jury_service.html
In the video Jonathan Lippman brags about how recent jury reforms give us Internet access in the jury rooms. That means these rules were made during the times of the Internet.
I even befriended a police officer who somehow got stuck with jury duty. Crazy! His Slingbox isn't working on wifi. My best guess is that the porn filter is blocking it.
We also had to fill out an anonymous bubble sheet survey, which asked us for age, race and gender. Pretty sure that is to collect data on the demographic makeup of juries.
Odds are that I'm just going to be sitting here until they let us go. Could be all week