Does the law need to come into the internet age ?

[SIRandyraven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-bucks-herts-16676871


In this day and age , I would think most people on Jury service would use Google for information on the case they are on ?
Well I would be tempted.

It seems doing jury service carries a risk these days.
Surely if the person on trial has a history of crime , it should reflect on them ?

[sandyRoe]

Aren't accused people supposed to be tried on the evidence presented in court?

[emmie]

no this was wrong, and those using the internet for the info and passing that onto to fellow jurors was plainly stupid.

[jackthehat]

1. No.
2. They shouldn't.
3. No. They should be tried on the facts as presented by the prosecution.

Incidents like these can cause judgements to be overturned.......and a re-trial may not be considered to be cost-effective, so guilty people get a 'Get out of jail card' because a juror is stupid enough to a) Google in the first place and, b) admit to doing so.

[Baldric]

I'm with sandy on this one.

[emmie]

otherwise it would be conviction by internet information, doesn't work that way. Juries are there for a reason, supposedly a balanced and impartial viewpoint.

[albaqwerty]

If you are on jury service, you hear the case for the prescution and the case for the defence. You then make up your mind about their innocence or guilt.
It's at the sentencing of a guilty verdict that other crims (if any) are mentioned.
She was extremely stupid.

[HowardKennitby]

It is probable that quite a few people would look on internet or just watch television news programmes. I don't think many would be dumb enough to admit it in the jury room.

[emmie]

she did, what a twit.

[chelle7272]

I'm sure people are tempted, but telling other people was just a stupid thing to do.

[Barmaid]

Absolutely agree with most of the above. People should be tried on the evidence presented in court. Only if the prosecution make a bad character application on one of the statutory grounds, should any previous be revealed to the jury. Then it should be caveated with the usual judicial warnings. Silly woman.

[sandyRoe]

If she had simply said that she didn't like the look of him, that his eyes were too close together, she might have swung the jury without endangering her own liberty.

[The-HouseHusband]

You are read the rules of serving on the jury before you take your place in the courtroom. This includes attempting to pervert the course of justice by researching the defendant/s or prosecutor/s in anyway. The case you are there to pass judgement on must come from within the walls of the courtroom alone and not some hearsay on a website possibly set up to make someone seem better or worse than they usually are.

If you are stupid enough to ignore these rules then you must accept the consequences that come your way.

[SIRandyraven]

So let's say I have a history of kicking dogs...
Been convicted four times in the past of kicking dogs in the park
I'm now in court for kicking a dog ...
I plead not guilty ...
Surely my previous should be know to the jury ?

[woofgang]

you are told not to do it, if you do it there is a consequence.

[emmie]

sandyr, just like the old days, if you look at punishments in the not too distant past for trivial offences, makes you glad you live in a 21st century democracy.

[SIRandyraven]

Problem is in this Internet age , is keeping people in the dark.
It may come to a time , when the jury have to be isolated from the world ...
Hotel with no tv , radio or Internet.
Mobile phone blockers in court also

[chelle7272]

That already happens in some cases doesn't it?

[emmie]

and if your previous criminal behaviour is known to a jury member by looking at the internet and they pass it to other jury members then that is prejudicial from the outset, so you effectively won't get a fair trial.

[SIRandyraven]

Jury selection these days must also include a high proportion of people who's first language is not English. With all the legal speak , a good chance they are not even following the trial and will look at other jurors for help and influence of a decision on guilt or not

[emmie]

no doesn't work like that either. It's not that much legal speak, perhaps you are thinking of those courtroom dramas that seem to portray the law in a less than accurate light.