Skip to main content

Will the internet really kill the jury system?

There have been dire warnings in the press that use of the internet is putting the jury system at risk. There seem to be two components to these legal worries. One is jury members discussing a trial while it's underway on social networking, the other is the dangers of jurors researching elements of the trial online.

The first of these is a genuine concern, but one that was always there, magnified by the power of social networking. It has always been possible for jurors to gossip with friends and relations about their thoughts on the trial, which clearly has potential dangers in close-knit communities. However, the social networking dimension does magnify the effect, particularly if a broadcast-style network like Twitter is involved. It has to be drummed into the jurors that it is a no-no.

But the second aspect is more complex. Unless the legal system believes that jurors have totally blank minds when they come to the court, they will already have a limited set of knowledge overlapping the context of the trial. If, for example, I was a juror in a trial that depended on statistical evidence, I would have a better chance of understanding it, and any flaws in it (in all probability) than a typical juror.

Some of the 'information' the jurors come pre-loaded with will be incorrect. In many ways it could be advantageous to getting a good hearing if they do research topics, particularly where it's a technical trial, or one that hinges on the evidence of expert witnesses. Yes, there is a danger that jurors will be swayed by some blogger baying for the death penalty or whatever, but the chances are, if they tend to look for this, they will already have been steeped in whatever the sensibility is. However, researching facts is a different matter.

The lawyers argue that this should be a good, ancient Greek style conflict, with presentations by the opposing barristers in the courtroom the only influence the jury's decision. This is an out of date and frankly naive approach. It would be much better if the juries had the best possible understanding of the technicalities that are being discussed. This is unlikely to be provided by biassed barristers. They aren't interested in the jury getting the best understanding, they want, if possible, to mislead the jury to get a result. Not only should we stop discouraging jurors from going online, we should actively help them to research the topics properly, so they can make an informed decision, not the judgement of an idiot, swayed by hot air.


  1. Isn't there a danger some of these sources on the internet will be wrong, or at least badly explained? I'm all for educating jurors - I'm sure it would make us all better judges - but I think their educational material should be checked for accuracy.

  2. Any source could be wrong. Many internet sources are more reliable than tabloid newspapers or some TV news, for example.

  3. Also quite a lot of expert witnesses have been wrong - as in the mothers accused of murdering their babies on a misuse of statistics.

  4. True, I agree some internet sites can be a much more reliable source than tabloids (or even, sometimes, the 'quality' papers). It's just so much more difficult to filter the wheat from the chaff on the internet - I think most people would need a lot of guidance.

  5. I think that's just a life statement, Clare. From school onwards, all people now need guidance on sorting wheat from chaff on the internet. I don't think we should make a distinction for jury service.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope