In an era of social media and the Internet, people’s lives have become much more easier.

 Assignment 2

 

 

In an era of social media and the Internet, should the jury be retained or should it be scrapped? Give reasons for your answer.

 

 

In an era of social media and the Internet, people’s lives have become much more easier. People can get connected with one and other by using online social network; they can also get new information with just one click away. Even for legal profession, it is not a stranger to Internet. However, this is also one of the main reasons that make the jury system particularly controversial in today’s world. There are more and more jurors were abandoned due to their inappropriate practices of Internet, this indicates that we should all start considering the continuous of the jury. The following will explain why the jury should be abrogated from different perspectives, in which each of the reason will be backed with sufficient evidences and examples.

 

First of all, the jury should be abolished as juror’s ability of carrying out unbiased judgment is likely to be deteriorated with the use of technology. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter allow people to share their thoughts to million and receive responds through the function of  ‘commenting’ and ‘typing a status’ (Eve and Zuckerman, 2012). In spite of the fact that conclusion in a case would only be drawn without any external influence, use of social network could increase risk of prejudicial communication before juror returning a verdict (ibid).  For example, juror can conduct a poll about how one should judge the case or make a comment about a case on any social media, in which opportunities to exercise enticement and influence upon jurors is emerged, making the fairness and impartiality of the juror’s judgment ambiguous. Hence, the jury should be abolished due to juror’ s questionable verdict in this era of technology.

           

            Apart from the concern over the of the jury’s judgment, the jury should be scrapped as continuous of the jury may undermine the legitimacy of judicial system. The purpose of the jury trial was to give public a chance to participate in legal process so as to making it more open and attaining pure justice. This is however anachronistic in this social media and Internet era since side effect can be caused. According to Thomas’s research (2010), for normal cases, 68% of jurors who are over 30 years old have admitted doing research online; for high-profile cases, 81% of them had looked for extra information on Internet during the trial. This does not only imply that chances of making biased judgment is increased but also show that there would be a larger chance for juror to engender extra information related to the case. There are various examples that groups of juror were caught using Blackberry and iPhone to split information about the case (Eve and Zuckerman, 2012). This would undeniably spawn public’s doubt about the credibility of legal system and make people losing faith in it. Therefore, the jury should be scrapped so as to ease public’s discontent and support the legitimacy of current legal system. 

 

            Some may say verdicts are always free from media influence, however this saying is seemingly not valid. Those who support the continuous of the jury are often based on a belief in the ‘fade factor’, which is an assumption that media reporting is less likely to bring any effect to juror’s judgment (Anderson, 1995). However, there is no practical evidence or research to show the validity of this presumption (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, living in the era of social media and Internet, people can still obtain new information or knowledge even they are just casually browsing any websites, for instance, news report that pop up on the Facebook ‘feed’. Similarly, although jurors are strictly confined with the use of Internet, media or online resources can still generate extra information of the case for them even they are being passive to receive any kind of information, especially for high-profile cases. As such, jurors can receive extra information that might hamper their decision making process, no matter if they are deliberated to or not. Therefore, even there is a chance for the existence of the ‘fade factor’, the jury should still be abrogated in order to attain true justice.

 

All in all, today’s informative online virtual world poses new challenges to the jury system, especially the righteousness of the jury’s verdict. This essay has so far provided reasons in explaining why the jury trail should be scrapped in today’s world i.e. concerns over prejudicial communication, legitimacy of current legal system and social apprehension. In sum, in light of Epstein’s words (2011), defendants in criminal cases are often charged with the most serious offenses, so jury’s decision is essentially important to criminal justice system. Therefore, it is a high time to start reconsidering the continuous of the jury.

 


 

Bibliography

 

Amy St Eve and Michael Zuckerman (2012), “Ensuring an impartial jury in the age of social media” Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1228&context=dltr.  

 

Thomas, C. (2010), ‘Are juries fair?’ Available at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf.

 

Epstein, R. (2011) ‘Are Juries Fair?’ Criminal Law and Justice Weekly. Available at: http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Are-Juries-.

 

Anderson, J. R. (1995) Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-19012-009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Price: £ 79

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions

Leave your Comments


Can't read the image? click here to refresh