While looking for an interesting article dealing with education and technology, I came across this article about technology in the courtroom. During deliberations, a juror decided to use his i-phone to look up the definition of "prudence," in order to help him and the other jurors come to a conclusion. The use of the electronic encyclopedia cost him his place on the jury, as well as the case. It was decided by the courts that his use of technology was not appropriate and the accused received a new trial - and a new jury.
What do you think about this? With dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, and google at our fingertips, should traditional places such as courtrooms allow the use of these resources to help the understanding of jurors and others involved, or is it to far of a stretch too soon in this technological age? After all, if he has asked the judge to define "prudence" for him, his request would have been granted.
To read the article, click here
I think this topic is an interesting one to bring up for discussion. Although technology has been on the rise, and rapidly, over the past few years, I still think there is a time and place. I believe there are places and opportunities where using technology is appropriate, however, I do not think that place in the courtroom.
ReplyDeleteJurors go through a very procedural and step-by-step explanation and rules for when they are going through this process. Therefore, there are most likely restrictions. The point of being in the courtroom and sitting on a jury is to listen and retain information being presented on both sides in order to make a rational and fact based decision in the end. Not only is checking a phone distracting, but he might not be using his phone for the right reasons. What if he was contacting a friend about the case that was going on right then? There are no guarentees and that is why there are rules for everyone to follow.
Like Saadia mentioned, he could have just as easily asked the judge what the term met, or discussed it with the other jurors later on.
I also believe that not everything on the Internet is true and valid. If this instance were to be more serious, that juror could get the wrong answer or impression because of the influence of the Internet on his phone. Even though I think it isn't appropriate during court, I think it could be beneficial to use during review or discussion. (For instance, a typed document, or a specific site that could be used during deliberation already approved by the court). Bringing technology casually into the court system is not the safest of decisions in my opinion.
I believe that proper communication and understanding is vital and the ability to define a term is a great way to enhance that, but I have to agree with Kendra on this matter. There are so many other applications on a cell phone that could also be tempting to use in this setting. The phone would become a distraction which could cause more comprehension issues. I believe that allowing the use of smartphone in the court room could also be unsafe do to the lack of monitoring
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, the mistrial verdict struck me as ludicrous. I certainly would want a jury of my peers to be armed with correct knowledge. All the foreman did was use a vetted source of knowledge—it wasn’t the urban dictionary or even Wikipedia, after all—in an attempt to render the fairest judgment possible. He didn’t even use it during the proceedings, rather as a reference tool during deliberation. But I have to agree that, while in this particular instance technology was not misused, it would be far too easy to abuse the easy access to knowledge that we now have. Even if it were possible to block communication applications and only provide access to reference material, it is still too risky for a legal setting. A little knowledge without explanation is a dangerous thing, and it would be far too easy to misconstrue elements of our legal system based on simple knowledge at our fingertips.
ReplyDeleteOk, I'm doing so well on this technology stuff that I actually lost my first posting, so here goes again...
ReplyDeleteThis topic seems so simple, yet so complex. The purpose of a trial jury is to render a verdict based on evidence provided in the courtroom. While I understand that the juror had a need for clarification, as with evidence, that should have come from within the courtroom. If this was a sequestered jury (couldn't tell from the article), seems like all mobile devices would have been confiscated. Actually, I think this should be the case even if not a sequestered jury. My point is that technology has advanced so much that there's really no way to ensure that jurors aren't able to get additional information from other sources. Just as the juror looked up a word for meaning, the same juror could have read articles about the crime or watched clips of news segments about the crime or trial. All of this could have biased his decision, not to mention the decision of the jury if that information would have been shared.
Think about all the procedures we live by in life. How many of those will have to be altered to accomodate the impact of social or digital media?
I think this is a fantastic topic to think about. I agree that the phone should absolutely not have been used in the courtroom. There is way too much danger for outside influence on the case. The juror should have definitely asked the judge his question.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tisha's question above, it's interesting to think about how we have come to expect quick google-ish answers in our daily life. I doubt that the juror even really thought about how it was against the law to google that definition. We expect up to the minute updates on our friends and interests via facebook. We can google anything and get an answer within seconds. There has been a lot of speculation that all of this quick info online has been rewiring our brains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html
It's harder to focus on daily activities, as well as retain long and short term information. I think the juror was so hard wired to expect instant answers on his phone that he wasn't able or didn't feel like realizing the consequences.
Wow! That's alot to process. I agree with all the statments made about the phone being an outside distraction and so on but I also like the comment made by Saadia about simply asking the judge.
ReplyDeleteSomething similar happened at my father's church this past summer. My father is a minister and he had a college student come and intern at his church this past summer. His phone has the Bible application on it and he often followed along during the sermon using his digital Bible. Many church members saw this and thought he was playing on his phone during church. It kinda caused a stink. He got up to do communion meditation one morning and read off his phone. There really isn't anything wrong with using technology in this way but the world isn't as technologically advanced as us. I think the courtroom isn't quite ready to be that technical.
I agree with Devri that although technology use in the courtroom may have it's benefits, it is to difficult to monitor and regulate use.
ReplyDeleteThe post about rewiring our brains is really interesting....It made me think about my dependence on "google-ish" answers; to all kinds of questions. (I actually own a hard copy dictionary, a present from my dad, but it rarely get's used!!)
A little off topic, but I was thinking about issues surrounding the medical field and a patients access to so much medical knowledge (as mentioned) whether it is reliable or not. How this effects a doctor patient relationship which is laden with rules, expectations and traditions, like our judicial system.
I definitely do not think that the use of a cell phone (especially a smart phone) is appropriate in that kind of setting. The fact that he used it instead of simply asking someone else the definition cost him his case is a little ridiculous because it could have been easily prevented!
ReplyDeleteMaybe in the future, a piece of technology could be developed for use specifically in court, such as a mini iPad with a built-in encyclopedia, etc. Until then, I agree with Cherelle that there are way too many other things on cell phones that could be distracting. Also the "unsafe" aspect - anyone could communicate with an outsider by using a phone, and could be planning some sort of dangerous attack. You just never know.
Jessica R. - I have seen that in my church too. My friend has a Bible app on his phone and I admit I do feel uncomfortable when he takes out his phone and follows along, because I'm the only one who can actually see what he's doing. It feels like people kind of give him looks because they think he's just texting or playing on his phone. I shared this with him and now he just uses his actual Bible because our church is quite conservative and many of the older members would definitely look down on using a phone during the service. I also think because it's a phone and no one can really tell what you're doing, it might set a bad example for others (like youth, children, etc.) and they might think it's ok to "play" on phones during church! Maybe in a more laid-back church it will become "acceptable" quicker than in other more conservative churches. For now, though, I just feel more comfortable sticking to the hard copies, so as not to cause a stir! I can only imagine what will happen in the future. Digital Bibles in the pews, maybe? That would be pretty cool!
Interesting post - personally, I think this was the right thing to do on the courts part. Although it initially seems ridiculous, the system does as much as possible to isolate the jury to give as much of a fair and balanced trial as possible. So, now that mobile technology is so widely available this becomes another challenge to the courts. What's ironic to me is that they isolate these jurors from so many things and yet someone was able to have their phone in the deliberation room.
ReplyDeleteI think Kendra is right in saying, "Although technology has been on the rise, and rapidly, over the past few years, I still think there is a time and place."
There definitely is a time and place. The jury could easily have asked for a dictionary and gotten it.
The church/phone comments are great too. I hadn't experienced this in my church but I can definitely see how it is a culture/generational clash. Jessica's comment on how people might think that you're playing games instead of reading the bible app could be misconstrued too. I agree. This technology is so "new" for many people and different settings that I think it'll take some time to develop new social norms for technology integration and acceptance in various settings.
I personally as an avid google searcher via mobile device I think it is great to be able to use technology in this way. At first I was thinking that may have been slightly inappropriate to be in a courtroom, but I feel that nowadays it is more acceptable. The only problem with this is regulation, how can you regulate the use? It is nearly impossible. With that being said the apps on cellphones are ingenious and very well may help out in situations. The question is where is the line drawn?
ReplyDelete