You're supposed to base your decision on only the admissible evidence presented and allowed, lest details outside that line prejudice your opinions. It's sort of like setting up double-blind experiments in science, trying to ensure that personal bias doesn't affect results.
Well, on second thought maybe it's not very much like that, but there's a similarity in the way an attempt is made to create a controlled environment in which only certain very specific things are considered, and to prevent the particular quirks of any participant from skewing the outcome. Right?
Staring at Empty Pages has some better-informed musing about why this control is important, while discussing an interesting NY Times story about the increasing risk of mistrials and overturned judgements due to jurors looking up outside information on the internet, Twittering about cases, etc.
If the whole trial system is set up on the assumption that impartial juries without prejudicial outside information can make a just decision, than we pretty much have to try to uphold the rules, but I imagine it's hard to keep that blank slate blank when you've got access to the web in your pocket for any seemingly harmless question that might come up.
It's such a habit for a lot of us these days. If you have a question, look it up! Instantly!
Once again, technology interacts in unexpected ways with old systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment