Melbourne Trial Aborted Due To Crime Web Site 196
Chatz writes: "The jury in a murder trial in Melbourne was dismissed because the
details about a previous trial of the accused are available on
CrimeNet (www.crimenet.com.au). There was no evidence that any of
the jurors had seen the information and the information is publicly
available in newspaper archives. Here is a link to the story." This sets an odd precedent, to say the least. Perhaps criminals would benefit by describing their crimes in excruciating detail as soon as they're apprehended. What do y'all think down under?
Crime Net's accuracy (Score:1)
I'm surprised this didn't get a higher mention, that the judge rejected this trial because CrimeNet was likely to mislead the jurors, after rejecting a CrimeNet mention as ground for dismissing a trial earlier in the week.
Considering CrimeNet openly state they rely on newspaper reports, I'm not too surprised. I remember several years ago, a house near my parents was destroyed, because a (homeless)pedophile, when arrested, gave his home address as that of the relatives who had turned him in. The court reports mentioned that he hadn't lived there for several years, but the newspaper reports only mentioned "Mr X, of 42 Blah Rd....". Self appointed vigilantes made sure that the family paid for turning him in.
Personally, I stopped believing that bad things only happen to bad people a long time ago. I find the idea that I could find my life getting shafted because of what someone typed into a web site fairly repugnant. I've been falsely accused of a crime, and it amazed me how many people just assumed that 'only criminals get arrested'. One of the things that these people seem to forget in their 'get tough on crime' stances, is that every wrong conviction they get, leaves a criminal free to start again with a clean slate, because someone else is paying for his crimes.
Melbournite.
A couple thoughts (Score:1)
Of course, since you'd need to be able to install that software on any platform, that means you'd need to develop censorware for Linux/BSD. (I'm assuming nobody runs IRIX or OSF or any of that stuff on a machine which they'd actually be using while stuck on jury duty.)
To me, barring jurors from reading info about the accused isn't true censorship, because they always have the option to read it once the trial is done. If you go to the library to get a book and someone else has checked out that book, that's not censorship --- you just have to wait.
Also, can some lawyer/historian type person explain what's up with this particular way of preventing jury bias? It seems to me that a defendant's past history is very relevant. If he's got multiple murder convictions, it probably is more likely that he did the one he's on trial for now. Yes, there will be bias, but that's what happens when you violate social contracts --- people stop trusting you. I think that's fair, and it's probably one of the better incentives not to commit crimes.
Re:A new precedent for Jury Selection? (Score:1)
Yes. The system is similar in all Australian States and Territories that a "Jury Roll" is established every few years from people on the electoral role (that is, Australian citizens eligible to vote). People are selected at random, and are advised that they are likely to be called in for selection to a jury panel. You can ask for an exemption (religious beliefs, medical, etc). If you name is selected, you have to turn up to court on the nominated day (again, if you have a reasonable excuse you may get out of it), where you are one of a pool of potential jurors for all trials that day even tho the trial may last a long time). Both the prosecution and the defence may challenge a jurors selection (the defence in a drug case may challence a older man), they need no reason, but they have a limited number of challenges. The jury - normally 12 - are then empaneled.
Point 2. It is not a precedent. Australian courts are very strong on "contempt" issues regarding any publication of the criminal history of an accused during a trial. The usual targets of their attention, tho are the talkback radio hosts (who usually pander to the more extreme elements who woudl pring back public executions, floggings and the pillories if they could).
Ken
No, a very old precedent for jury selection (Score:1)
If a jury selection is based on finding people who know absolutely nothing about a case, don't watch TV News, listen to radio news, read the newspaper or even surf the 'Net, who does that leave to make decisions regarding the life (or even death in some places) of someone accused of a crime?
Simply, perhaps over-simply, this selection process only leaves the ignorant, the isolated and the uninformed to make these major, onerous decisions.
What kind of justice is that?
Except Oregon (Score:1)
When they thought it was harmless... (Score:1)
Well, now we have concrete proof of the damage such a database can cause. Not only does it ruin ppls' lives by posting old crimes committed by them, but now, it even obstructs the justice system trying a person on a new crime.
So, what exactly is this site good for then? Reformed ppl are victimized, and repeat offenders are protected!
---
Re:A couple thoughts (Score:1)
Yes, but there is no true proof in a courtroom. Maybe he really was framed. Maybe the DNA samples were switched at the lab, or worse yet, this is one of those cases where the test fails. (There are actually a lot of those if one is doing a sufficient amount of DNA testing, which is why I'm a bit scared that DNA is currently treated as though God came down out of the sky and said "He did it.") Maybe the eyewitness is mistaken or lying.
In short, it all comes down to the subjective opinion of twelve people based on all sorts of testimony, much of which is also based on subjective criteria. If you're going to let that much noise into the system, adding in the prior record isn't going to introduce significant inaccuracy, IMHO.
Note that I'm not saying that the judicial system is bad for being the way it is. I think it works much of the time, with exceptions made for anything involving the rich or the powerful.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
Thad
Re:how the . . ? (Score:1)
and indeed a trial with a jury is not by definition fair, either.
But one of the great strengths of the jury system is that it can allow some much valued flexibility. The jury's verdict is their own, and is binding. This is one of the ways junk laws get altered. Juries allow debugging of the legal system.
The most obvious examples have tended to be in cases with political overtones - here in the UK juries have refused to convict, despite unarguable factual evidence:
- Civil servants breaking the Official Secrets Act to whistleblow on criminal activities by their departments
- Protestors who vandalised a shipment of Hawk aircraft about to be sent to Indonesia for use in 'policing' East Timor
- Women who finally snapped after decades of abuse and killed their husbands - since these jury decisions the laws have been changed so that other charges can be used instead of murder in these cases
In general, the whole point of a jury is that it is a jury 'of one's peers' - not selected because they are in any way specially qualified for the case, or rejected because they are specially disqualified (excepting direct vested interests)TomV
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
What about people who never heard of Jesus, or the Bible? Are they automatically condemned? If so, what was the point in them living in the first place?
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
7days - God gave you a brain, so that you may think. Please, for all our sake's use it. Understand this : your entire belief system and way of living your life is based upon the contents and interpretation of a book. A very old book granted, but a book nonetheless. Now that book may have been written, as you believe, by the disciples of Christ, around the year 0. And it may contain the word of God, telling us how to live our lives. All of that MAY be true - and if you (and millions of others) wish to believe that and follow those teachings then fine, far be it from me to interfere in how you choose to live your life.
BUT (and it's a big but), the majority of the world's population (myself included) choose not to believe that the book in question was written by God (directly or indirectly). Some people believe in other deities, or "forces", but as a whole the Christian population of the world is a minority. Personally, I don't believe that God (or Satan, or Chiba, or Krishna, or etc...) exists. Simple as that. Can you understand that your argument (and I am paraphrasing) that "if you don't worship God you worship Satan" means nothing to me...in the root of my being I do not believe either of those concepts have any basis in reality. Likewise your argument that basically "it is so, because it says so in the bible" is equally meaningless. Have you ever heard the phrase "it's in the newspaper, so it must be true" ?? Tounge-in-cheek I know, but the idea holds. If I have no faith in the source of information, then what faith do I have in the information itself?
Morality is an inheriently personal thing. My morality is governed and defined by my beliefs and my experiences. It is not governed by what someone else has told me to believe.
I believe it is immoral to kill, it is immoral to steal, it is immoral to torture. I guess you believe the same. I also believe it is (deeply) immoral to pre-judge someone on grounds of their religion (or lack of it). I believe it is immoral to invade another land and attempt to force your belief system on the inhabitants, and when that fails, kill them all. I believe Hitler was immoral.
Do you believe those things?
On another note - look back in history. How many examples can you find of people or groups who were utterly convinced they were right. Until they were proved wrong. With so many different people in the world with so many different religous belief sets - how can you possibly be so sure you are right...and they are all wrong? Either you hold to your convictions (which I admire) or your mind is closed to other possibilities (which I pity). Which is it?
It doesn't work that way in Australia. (Score:1)
Once selected, jurors are sworn in, and the trial gets underway.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
Million Mom Math (Score:2)
ROFL
Even the 80,000^H^H^H^H^H^HMillion Morons had that figure vastly inflated with their claim of 13 children per day (They include 19-year-old gang members as "children").
The real figure is much, much lower.
--
A precedent that may spread to the US (Score:1)
This is NOT why the jury was dismissed... (Score:1)
Fucking journalists... The reason the jury was dismissed was that, even though they may not have seen the defendants priors on CrimeNet, the fact was that, due to discussions within the court room, those jurors are now aware that the defendant does appear on CrimeNet (which they also know is a public database of criminal records) which could unfairly bias their opinions in the case at hand.
It should also be pointed out that the case hasn't been tossed... its merely that the jury has been let go.
The question on CrimeNet's ability to bias a jury still stands however and needs to be addressed. In Austrlia, a defendants prior convictions can only be disclosed for the purposes of sentencing *after* the defendant has been found guilty.
Re:A couple thoughts (Score:1)
We accept psychological opinions as evidence in trials (or at least we do in the USA). To me, knowledge that a person has killed before, and especially that he/she has killed repeatedly, is information about his/her psychological makeup. If nothing else, it shows that any prior claims of reform and repentance were not sincere. This means that I should also distrust any statements that the defendant may make in the current trial; what is a charge of perjury to one who is on trial for murder?
Lie detector technology doesn't really work. The only known way to detect bullshit is via context and contradictory evidence. Details of someone's criminal history seem to be useful in this regard and therefore seem likely to lead to improved decisions, and therefore I'd say juries should have access to them.
Re:A new precedent for Jury Selection? (Score:1)
Re:You are wrong, he is right (Score:1)
thank you dork
In the U.S. (Score:1)
Basically the jury pools end up being 12 of the folks who weren't sharp enough to get out of jury duty. I'm being a little sarcastic but there is some truth to it. Putting the detail on the net wouldn't have all that much of an impact and most crimes of this type get pleaded down prior to jury trial anyway.
Re:Truth and the web (Score:1)
Jeroen
Impartial jurt, fact or fiction (Score:2)
I'd hate to tried by a jury of shut-in's and weirdo's who think TV, Computers, and newspapers are the devil's work. I would rather have a bunch of liars.
Then again, it did seem to work out for OJ.
Re:how the . . ? (Score:1)
So I propose that when your number comes up for jury duty you get whisked off into a giant plastic bubble to serve your term of jury duty with only the company of other jurors. You will live blind-folded with oven mitts on your hands at all times; as well as large balls of cotton stuffed into, and taped onto, your ears.
This will be inconvenient at first... but that will all be solved once we begin cloning jurors. We'll find the perfect jurors from our initial population and mass produce the most fit of them in great vats. The result will be an entire race of jurors.
It will be glorious. An entire population of perfectly blank slates. Ofcourse we'll need BladeRunners to terminate the 'jurors' after they gain a certain level of awareness. We'll give our artificial jurors a limited life span to compensate... say 3 years... then boom!
-
Re:A new precedent for Jury Selection? (Score:1)
Two things.
First, does the Australian judicial system have jury selection? Certainly the US doesn't, but the US system isn't the pattern used in most of the world. A lot of countries base their judicial system on the Britsh judiciary, which (thankfully) doesn't have jury selection. And as Australia is a member of the Commonwealth and former part of the British empire...
Secondly, it is not 'a precedent'. A precedent is a legal decision reached at the end of a trial for a legal appeal. This is just a very stupid decision, which may (as someone else in this thread insightfully points out) may be politically motivated in the current situation where the Australian government is trying to gain popular support for Internet censorship.
Re:Crime in the media (Score:1)
In most cases that require a jury trial the jury pool folks answer the questions honestly, but selection is a pretty complicated science and very specialized. The Lawyers look at race, religion, class, etc. not to get an even crossmix but to get folks that will empathise with their side of the story.
Re:Solutions... (Score:1)
I don't remember the details, but I seem to recall an incedent recently where a well known pervert was "assasinated" by vigalanties. The only reason he was out in the first place was because they couldn't find a jury who handn't heard about his previouse convictions.
If the jury didn't know his name then it wouldn't have mattered. Perhaps courts should do more to protect the identity of a defendant, perhaps the jury shouldn't even get to see them. That would prevent accusations of bias based on race or grotesque uglyness.
Thad
and I search a news papers archives on the web.. (Score:1)
Looks like this is just the Oz govnmt ganging up against this site.
It is inherent that the Internet will taint trials (Score:1)
"Do you own a computer?" or "Do you have an internet connection?" could be the new basis for sequestering a jury/juror, or dismissing one entirely.
What's wrong with this? Whatever is necessary to protect the objectivity of the jurors and the fairness of the trials.
So called Non-techs could wind up being the ones making decisions on increasingly technical crimes.
Implying that this is a bad thing is nothing less than elitism. What makes you think a programmer is any better qualified to make a decision on DeCSS or Napster or a website hacking than a farmhand from Kansas? I can almost guarantee you that the farmhand has had a more moral upbringing and goes to Church more than the programmer.
Another angle we should take a look at is the possibility of a law being passed amending a jurors rights and duties to include not being able to connect to the internet either at home, or at work, once notified of jury duty.
You don't go far enough on this. It should be mandatory to ask whether this juror has ever illegally downloaded any copyrighted materials, or visited any pornographic websites. Any questions about the veracity of the juror's answers should be taken care of by an inspection of his home computer. While the Internet can be used for good, it has far more potential to taint the minds of the public than any other invention since the dawn of mankind, and we should not hesitate to keep our justice system (justice system) free of such influences.
a single juror gaining knowledge of the crime ahead of time could taint the trial
Just as a single amoral or immoral juror could. These need to be screened for too.
Sometimes she sees things a bit too clearly.
Justice can never be clear-sighted enough.
More articles from Australian media (Score:2)
--
Re:What actual benefits does Crimenet have? (Score:1)
Re:I don't know about Australia... (Score:1)
What ruling was that again?
The judge threw out the jury... not the case!
They hit reset button and start again.
Same name.... (Score:1)
Re:and I search a news papers archives on the web. (Score:1)
How does the decision of a court in Victoria amount to persecution by the government of Australia?!
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
Indeed. Those evil non-Christians have destroyed our country. What we need to do now is overthrow the government and set up a Christrian monarchy. There will be no juries, because all trials will be settled by Judges, who will also be executioners. I think you have what it takes to be a Judge, so please join us at http://www.shadowgov.com/ [shadowgov.com]
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
Re:A new precedent for Jury Selection? (Score:1)
Yes, some potential jurors can be dismissed. As you said, lawyers often get a certain number of dismissals without reason. They also can request dismissal of anyone for whom they have a reason (such as a friend of the accused, or being David "Everyone Accused Is Guilty" Letterman).
A new precedent for Jury Selection? (Score:3)
It is indeed, a precedent. But is it a good one? Think about it. As a citizen, you could lose your right (It's not really a duty, you know) to be considered a "peer" of the accused.
"Do you own a computer?" or "Do you have an internet connection?" could be the new basis for sequestering a jury/juror, or dismissing one entirely. So called Non-techs could wind up being the ones making decisions on increasingly technical crimes.
Another angle we should take a look at is the possibility of a law being passed amending a jurors rights and duties to include not being able to connect to the internet either at home, or at work, once notified of jury duty.
While I don't completely agree with the Melbourne decision to dismiss the jury, I understand it. The availability of knowledge on the internet IS phenomenal, and a single juror gaining knowledge of the crime ahead of time could taint the trial.
Justice, though she is blind, does not appear to be deaf, or dumb. Sometimes she sees things a bit too clearly.
krystal_blade
Truth and the web (Score:1)
Well, if no members of the jury had seen the article, then why did they dismiss them? Unless we take jurors without internet access..
I'll remember that next time I decide to kill someone.
bah. Melbourne is a weird place.
-tsg
Re:obsession (Score:1)
That's beside the issue. Web sites can be just as inaccurate, if not more so, than newspapers. The root issue remains controlling juror action.
Yeah but you'll always be your mom's little baby (Score:1)
how the . . ? (Score:1)
Re:Honor System (Score:2)
Dang. You're right.
I'll go delete all those illegal MP3s now.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:Truth and the web (Score:1)
Internet is fast, but... (Score:1)
The info could have been printed on paper and then distributed. It's not as easy, but if someone threw a lot of dough against it I guess you could get some coverage.
So, theoretically the jury should have been able to get the info via other media or means...
So if you're not sequestering the jury somewhere away from all outside influences, you're doing something wrong anyway, right?
xchg
Re:Quite a reasonable decision (Score:1)
That's the sticky point in all of this, isn't it?
The last time that this site was mentioned ( crimenet ), someone else made the same point. Just out of curiosity, I did a search on the Internet to see how many people have the same name as me.
The answer is - rather a lot.
It seems that I have been *very* busy on the internet over the years. I seem to have spent considerable time in Scotland, France and the USA.
I also seem to be knowledgeble on a whole range of things that I know nothing about and have discussed these things at considerable length with people that I have never met ( on or off-line ).
Like the old song goes, "I've been eveywhere man, I've been in Japan man... " and apparently without even knowing it.
In this respect, while I think that the court has over-reacted in a knee-jerk way, it's understandable. The possibility of being mistaken for someone else with the same name out here on the net is pretty high and it's one of the reasons why I am becoming more and more inclined to annonynimity.
Though that has problems of it's own, but that's another article and another thread...
You might be strangling my chicken, but you don't want to know what I'm doing to your hampster.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
Sorry? Are you implying that programers and people who don't go to Church are immoral? I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
Re:Quite a reasonable decision (Score:1)
Let me also state right here that I'm not fully clear on my own stand regarding these types of "vigilante" sites. I agree that these sites could cause a lot of unjust situations and a lot of pain for some people not deserving it.
On the other hand, I quote: CrimeNet offers details on 4000 convicted criminals gleaned from newspapers and court records.
So what's next? No more jurors who have been known to read the paper, watch the news, follow court decisions, etc.? Because in theory, everyone could get the information on the site by doing their own (albeit extensive) research.
xchg
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:3)
How did you arrive at the conclusion that (paraphrased) many programers are imoral?
Re:A new precedent for Jury Selection? (Score:1)
"Do you own a computer?" or "Do you have an internet connection?" could be the new basis for sequestering a jury/juror, or dismissing one entirely. So called Non-techs could wind up being the ones making decisions on increasingly technical crimes.
And yet we here on /. post our opinions about anything and everything whether or not we have the slighest clue about them with no sense of the irony and hypocrasy of it.
People in the jury aren't meant to be experts, otherwise they'd get in a bunch of forensic scientists, lawyers and so on rather than regular people. Whether or not they are technically competent should make no difference to their chance of selection - this is the essence of democracy after all.
Re:Crime in the media (Score:1)
This ruling probably won't amount to much in the ong term, but has been seen as a token of how the Internet and the world wide web at one point was not simply considered another media for information.
-Jon
Calm down. Nothing new, really. (Score:1)
I went to my local library and did a quick search on a few broad keywords relating to criminal cases in the computer newspaper index.
Between that and the archive, I was able to find as much info as probably was on CrimeNet on criminals.
All CrimeNet are doing is making it easier to access. Agreed, that is a bad thing, but don't get all hyperactive because it's new and different. It's not.
All they did is scour newspapers and get articles relating to criminals.
I am not affiliated with CrimeNet, nor do I agree with what they are doing. There are cases where people have been "checked out" by neighbours and the like, and just because they shared a name with a criminal, they've virtually been run out of town, to use the old adage. A couple of people who have had minor convictions have had a lot of job applications automatically refused because of said convictions.
It's not entirely good. But it's not new. It's not different. Read the newspapers, guys, and ease off on the red cordial. Calm down.
d
PS: Our jury selection is exactly like
-
Facts (Score:1)
Re:A couple thoughts (Score:1)
Suppose for one year I drove drunk every Friday. Then for a year I went to AA meetings every Friday.
Then someone got killed by a drunk driver on Friday. Did I do it?
You *must* look at the evidence. Hard cold evidence. History may or may not lead you to the right conclusion.
Sure rapists, drunks, killers may be repeat offenders, but it only shows that the person charged could do it, not that they did. Should we let murderers go if they it's a first offence. After all, every day of their life before the killing, they didn't kill anybody, thus, they have proven they couldn't do it. Bullarky! History is circumstancial. It's not proof.
Re:Why jury trials at all? (Score:2)
I sure would like someone to be on my side if I went to court. However, a board is quite predictable. Either the evidence is enough to convict me or it is not. A jury could find me guilty cause they don't like my appearance or set me free cause they feel sorry for me.
While I certainly don't like the fact that everyone except me works for the government (which is only really a problem if some official is involved in the case) uncertainty is not a good protection of my rights.
Re:State law == Christian law? (Score:1)
Of course there were actually 10h commandments, with commandments 0Ah 0Bh 0Ch 0Dh 0Eh and 0Fh being specifically related to computers.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
The old testament is an intresting document indeed. Unfortunately it is more of an autobiography than a historical document. Every event is described so that the jewish people is glorified. Nothing unusual, every people has compiled history readings to show their greatness. However that is something one must consider when reading the bible (just like any other document) in a historical sense.
Regarding the morality of Country folk and christians: Remember that both of these communities (in their traditional sense) are close knit and everyone knows everyone else. This makes the raising of children in a moral fashion quite a bit easier
That makes raising conforming children easier. Wether they are more moral or not is a different question. I dont consider xenofobia to be a moral thing...
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:1)
First, I feel like an ass for responding to you, because there's a good chance you're a troll. If your first post didn't state that obviously enough, each of your subsequent ones have served to prove it. However, if it is the case that you are serious, which I fear, then I will try to respond as such.
>and of course the notion that !Christian==Imoral.
This is fact, as substantiated in the Bible...you, knowingly or not, worship Satan.
I haven't read the bible in a while, but last time I checked, Jesus wanted you to love everyone, and spread the love of your God to the rest of the world. You obviously don't love any of us. You'd rather accuse us of unwitting Satan worship instead of trying to love and understand us. Way to follow the ways of your saviour.
Christians have an obligation to set right the wrongs of the world, and if this leads to violence...
I thought they had an obligation to spread love and compassion. And turn the other cheek. Violence? A true christian would not consider it. Look towards your savior. He never struck back, even at his crucifiers.
Your words are riddled with hypocrisy. You make me proud to have abandoned your religion years ago to search for one that doesn't inspire hate. You, and people like you, have lost yet another, by convincing me that any God that would use you as a tool of His word is a God I want nothing to do with.
Currently a proud, albeit confused, athiest,
MalSyned
P.S. I'd be your friend. You wouldn't be mine. Ask Jesus how he feels about that. He was perhaps the only Christian who ever understood what He was talking about.
Re:obsession (Score:1)
Exactly my point on a previous post.
The root issue remains controlling juror action.
How can you achieve this without having them locked up in rooms 24hours for the duration of a trial? Lets not forget some trials go on for years.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
One of my reflections when I sat down and actually read it was how single persons are never gloryfied: It is the *people* that is. You get the notion that every people has their god(s). Jahve is by no means the only god around. The moral is that a) You should never betray your *own* god. b) Stick with Jahve, cause he's the strongest.
Exodus is a fine example. Pharao's magicians get aid from *their* gods. It is just that Mose has a stronger ally.
And, yes there are many ways to read the Torah (as well as the new testiment)
Ever tried to read Exodus as a comedy? If you don't fint it heretical, I really recomend it.
Re:how the . . ? (Score:2)
//rdj
Didn't they hear about sequestering jurors? (Score:2)
Then, the chances they are aware of previous criminal record against the defendant is the same as with common media.
In the U.S. this is common practice on high-profile cases. The only difference is that this lowers the rack for what is considered a 'high-profile case'.
-Tal
-Tal
"Ars Gratia Artis"... When will we see that on a Metalica T-shirt?
To to their job, jurys must understand the trial (Score:2)
Some farmhands might have difficulty following the technical issues. E.g. they may not have enough understanding to decide whether or not the recording industry made a "reasonable effort" to make DeCSS secure. (Dunno if that decision would be neccessary for that trial, it's just an example of something hard to understand if you're not technical).
If you believe in separation of church and state, then this should count for nothing. The job of the jury is to decide whether [it's overwhelmingly likely that] the law has been broken. It is *not* to decide if the defendant has broken the Christian moral code, or the juror's own moral code.
State law == Christian law? (Score:2)
Contemporary mainstream Christianity would say that someone who has never heard of Jesus or Church can still go to heaven (if they do, in fact, live by and with God, whether they know the word "God" or not). This is offtopic, and probably irrelevant to all programmers; I just wanted to ensure that people didn't take the above sentence to speak for Christianity as a whole.
However, I still suggest that a jury decision should be based upon the law and not Christian morals; else people will be behaving outwardly Christianly by compunction and not by choice, which is not desirable whether or not you are Christian.
Re:Why jury trials at all? (Score:2)
Also, judges can set aside a conviction (but not an acquital) if they beleive that the evidence is insufficient. It's a 13-input AND gate.
And if you don't like that, in most cases you can elect to go before just a judge, no jury, and have him or her decide your fate; you're not mandated to accept a jury trial.
I ought to note that the courts, once again proving their illiteracy (what part of "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" do they not understand?), have decided that the right to a jury trial doesn't apply to crimes carring a sentence of less than six months - even if you're facing twenty counts and could be put away for ten years. Trial by jury, another casualty of the War on (Some) Drugs.
I don't know about Australia... (Score:2)
As a general rule, the more a law applies to, the more flexible it is made. Jury selection certainly qualifies, and it is indeed very flexible in the U.S. In the U.S., if a case draws strong passions, there is often a change of venue, to avoid selecting impassioned jurors for the panel.
The change of venue is obviously ineffective at controlling pre-trial publicity if the case makes national news, but there are other ways of dealing with this.
1) Jurors are selected from the voter registration rolls. This means that the people selected tend to have an interest in the course of government, and will take their duties seriously.
2) Potential jurors are interviewed thorougly to determine whether or not they have formed opinions about the case. Sometimes it may take 100 interviews to come up with 12 impartial jurors, but they get a jury eventually.
3) The experience of a trial, with all its formality and deliberation, is a deeply involving experience, much more so than reading a newspaper or watching the evening news or visiting a website. Jurors form very strong opinions from the facts presented at trial, and tend to ignore outside evidence.
4) If there is extensive publicity and speculation during the trial, the jury may be sequestered. In the past, this has involved sheriff's deputies cutting out stories about the case from the paper, and sometimes even listening in on phone calls. Having a deputy nearby while they are using the internet would not be an innovative measure. Sure, this is hard on the jurors, but that's a discussion for another time.
5) In the U.S., at least, it takes a unanimous verdict to end a trial. If the jurors cannot agree, the judge will declare a mistrial and a new one will begin. It is extremely unlikely that one jurors, influenced by an outside source, will convince the rest to change their verdict. In addition, since it is unlikely that an influenced juror to get on the panel in the first place, it is very unlikely that you'd ever have more than a couple make it on, even in extreme cases.
So, I know the U.S. system is safe. I would imagine that many countries already have similar systems in place. Maybe even Australia does, but this was a bad ruling. I'm not worried about bad precedents hitting me. Australians, you've got to take your courts back.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
Not really, because you seem to have based your argument on presumption, imagination, a limited experience with programers, and of course the notion that !Christian==Imoral.
I'm an atheist, and i am certain i am not imoral. I don't steal, cheat, engage in violence, i love my mother and the rest of my family etc. etc.
By all means, practise a religion. Just don't tell me i am wrong because i don't practise your religion too. That way do wars lie.
Why jury trials at all? (Score:2)
In Sweden, cases are decided by a board instead of a jury (except in freedom of press cases) While that system also has its problems it avoids the uncertainity of jury trials.
Now as a law abiding non-lawyer citizen, I don't have much experience with our courts, and my "knowledge" of american courts come mostly from TV and slashdot, so I don't feel very qualified comparing the systems.
What do you say. Is the whole concept of an uninformed peer jury flawed or is it worh preserving?
Justice must be based on Ignorance (Score:2)
Why is it unacceptable to let the jury in a murder trial know that the defendant has been convicted of murder before, for example? Shouldn't a jury know all the facts? If we trust a jury to make the decision of guilt or innocence, shouldn't we also be able to trust them with the truth?
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:3)
Yknow that the abortion rate in Kansas is fast approaching 1 per woman-lifetime?
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:3)
I love the hypocrisy that seems to follow Christianity. Having attended private Christian school for a good portion of my upbringing, it is that mindset alone which has kept me 'out of God's grace'. I don't want to associate myself with a group that is so adept at preaching something, yet so ill-adept at following their own preachings.
I do not find Christians immoral, nor do I find atheists immoral. I judge not, lest I be judged. I do tend to find more hypocrites acting on God's behalf than the other way around, however. I have some VERY righteous family members, who wholly believe in God, and are very active in the church, but it's not Christianity that makes them good people.
For the record, I DO believe that a religion that teaches love thy neighbour, do not steal, etc. is a good thing for people willing to accept that. However, I don't feel that excluding yourself from said group, for WHATEVER reason, makes you any more immoral than anyone else, including members of the church.
Re:Why jury trials at all? (Score:2)
You have not convinced me, but I learned something. Slashdot at it's best, for once...
Re:Not that i'd know or anything... (Score:3)
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
Insightful?? (Score:2)
And, next time you troll, you might want to stay with the good ol' "stupid opinion" method, and not mix it up with incorrect statistics. I mean at least not dead wrong numbers.
Solutions... (Score:2)
Or not disclosing the names of any people in the court case (defendant, witnesses), including to the jury, until after the case...
Theres already too much stuff in the press...Craig Charles was accused of rape, held on remand (in prison) for months, eventually found not guilty, but its not like the doctrine of `innocent until proven guilty` was uphelp there, was it?! Plus you get vigilante type idiots who believe anything the police say as an excuse to get all hot and bothered about stuff...
Ethics of Privacy. (Score:3)
I admit that the ciminals must be punished but not with eternal mark on their foreheads.
The Over-Reaction == Excuse For Future Censorship (Score:3)
There was no evidence that any of the jurors had seen the information, so why dismiss the jury?
Answer: to scare the public that the Internet will make it so crimes go unpunished. Thus, to further scare the public into accepting Net censorship.
Re:I don't know about Australia... (Score:2)
Whilst I'm not a laywer, I have been on jury duty on a few occasions. There's a couple of subtile differences between the American and Australian legal system.
In Australia it is perjory to discuss a case in the media which has not gone to trial. There is a difference in the way "jury fairness" is obtained. In the US, there is the interogation of potential jurers prior to them being selected. In Australia your name is just selected out of a box and the defense and prosecution can say "no" but just by looking at you - not by questioning. And I seem to think that each side is only allowed three rejections.
In Australia, the fairness is acheived by not allowing the case to be discussed before hand in the media.
It's a separate discussion as to which is the best method. However, this difference is why the trial was aborted - it was on the grounds that we now have a fairly easy method for a case to be discussed before the trial.
Further, with regards to only people on electral roles being selected for jury duty. In Australia voting is compulsory - everyone is on the roles and everyone must attend a polling booth when there is an election. If you choose to put a blank ballot paper in the box that's up to you. It might be better to say it is compulsory to attend a polling booth. Anyway it blows away the argument about only those on electrol rolls will take their jury role seriously.
If there was any conspiracy WRT to shutting down this site it would be due to the criticism which as already been leveled against it (before this incident). There is no gaurentee the information is accurate and there is no way to have yourself taken off the list.
So this comes down to a privacy debate. Something which has been discussed at length on /. Yes, sure all the information is out there, but it's not all togther in one place and would a false impression of a person be gained if they were listed on this site. If you don't like what doubleclick are doing then equally you should be against this website. This poses an even harder and more emotive case as to why we should not allow privacy invasion. Whilst these people may me criminals, they still have the same rights to privacy as the rest of us.
Just my 2c worth, and IANAL.
Fozzy
Re:how the . . ? (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
I thought the difference between Jews and Christians was that the Christians think that Jesus is the Son of God and Jews think Jesus was a false profit.
putting aside any financial jokes for the time being, the difference is that Christians now think Jesus was the One True Savior (tm) Son of God (c), etc. Jews instead see Jesus as a wise prophet, but not The Savior.
Lea
Re:Why jury trials at all? (Score:2)
The procecutor, the judge, maybe even the defence attorney if you're stuck with a public defender, are all working for the government. If I were on trial I'd sure want someone involved in the process to be independant.
Juries exist not only to try the facts of the case, but sometime to try the law as well [fija.org]. (Sadly, this concept has gotten largely lost in recent years.) They are an important check against bad laws.
Timothy and the Law (Score:2)
Timothy - I don't think it's an odd precedent at all. I think the judge has acted in the spirit of the law. Due process necessitates that you will have a fair and unbiased jury. While there will always be bias, while jurors are human, we are still better off in trying to consciously overcome our own shortcomings.
Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that CrimeNet is police-operated. The fact is that CrimeNet gathers its material from publically available sources - newspapers, what information police will provide, and so forth.
Thirdly, the criminal's decision to describe his crime would - should other evidence support the case - likely have him found guilty by trial.
I believe that there are two critical items here:
Taken together, these mean that there is a real chance that jurors will hold pre-judgement - prejudice, in other words. And there is stacks of research that shows you that prejudices have tangible affects on trial outcomes.
The judge has set a good precedent here. Let's not tear him down for it.
be well;
JC.
ps - Timothy: some of us may find "y'all down under" just a teensie bit patronising. Not all. Some.
--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.
Re:Justice must be based on Ignorance (Score:2)
Because
I know that sounds silly, but the legal system is not about convicting, overall, as many guilty people as possible and as few innocent people as possible. It's about trying as hard as possible not to convict an innocent person nor to acquit a guilty person in this case [Also with the former being worse than the latter]. Paradoxically, what gives the best results in each case may not give the best results overall. If justice was anything like insurance, then the poor, black, drug-addicted guy would be convicted partly by statistical evidence. Then next time he's in court, he's a poor, black, drug-addicted convicted murderer. A system which is more accurate but more unfair may not be a good thing.
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:3)
I have never read the bible, nor do i believe a word of it. Your argument holds no weight for me there.
therefore you, knowingly or not, worship Satan. You are immoral.
I should take this personally. But i won't. Because a) I don't believe in Satan, so why should that worry me in the slightest? b) If i am a glowing example of a Satan worshiper, i think there should be more of us in the world.
Christians have an obligation to set right the wrongs of the world
Translation "I am better than you. I shall stick my nose into other peoples business and tell them what to do. I do not beleive in individuality."
and if this leads to violence
Yeah, violence is great in the name of God, perfectly alright. Oh, doesn't the Bible say something about "Love thy neighbour", or are you allowed to ignore that bit if it suits you?
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
Crime in the media (Score:2)
Reporting crime in the media is nothing new at all, it just seems that the court took a knee-jerk action because the details were on the internet this time.
Blatant stupidity? (Score:2)
If a jury are dismissed just for the possibility of having seen the site... surely this means that there are no valid jurors, worldwide? Or do we now resort to jurors from countries with no widespread internet access? Or do we just let them go now, since there's apparently no way to try them...?
Personally, I'd say string 'em up... but that's just me...
Considering that the material was available in newspapers, which the jurors are much more likely to have seen, this all seems too much like the typical panic of the ignorant - "The Internet's going to take over the world!!!" I think not...
Re:It is inherent that the Internet will taint tri (Score:2)
Fortunately Jesus does not agree with you.
I could post a number of bible quotes here, but if you are really a christian I wont have to.
Learn The Error Of Your Wicked Ways. (Score:2)
most people that are Christians are not true Christians. They do not attend Church twice a week and pray every night
A 'true Christian' (your term, not mine) would go to Church more frequently than twice a week (how about twice a day?), and would pray more regularly than every night. A true Christian would praise God with everything he says and does.
A place where Christianity is taboo has a much larger proportion of programmers than almost any other website I know of.
Christianity is not a taboo on Slashdot, what rubbish. However, Slashdot is a Linux website and discussions of Christianity would be off-topic. In fact, Slashdot gives a free platform from which Christians (such as myself) are able to air our views. Try Advogato [stileproject.com] and The Stile Project [advogato.org] for even less coverage of Christian issues. You will then realise how tolerant Slashdot is to the discussion of Christianity and Christian issues.
Fourth: a farmhand is likely to have grown up in Middle America, a place of strong moral fiber, and to be free from many of the evil influences that the city brings.
Utter nonsense, trollboy. Middle America is a place of very poor moral fibre - it is an inherently racist region and a region ruled by violence. Guns (the tools Satan uses to turn man against his fellow man) are widespread in America, and the majority of Americans worship the ideals of consumerism rather than God. It is down to individual choice whether or not to follow Evil, and in this respect no region is better than any other. As far as "evil influences" of cities, surely cities have more churches per area than small less densely populated villages, therefore cities are intrinsically holy?
Most people with a Computer Science degree are lucky to remain with the slightest few sheds of religion that have not been indoctrinated out of them.
Hello? Computer Science degrees make no attempts influence people's religious views. While they may indoctrinate people that Python [perl.org] is better than Perl [python.org], Solaris [freebsd.org] is better than BSD [sun.com], vi is better than EMACS [microsoft.com] and Microsoft [gnu.org] is better than everything put together, these are not religous arguments. They are trivial.
Please, think before you post next time.
Re:State law == Christian law? (Score:2)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Not that i'd know or anything... (Score:4)
Honor System (Score:4)
I assume that the Aussies also have a similar convention. So, my confusion is over why it is okay for me to say... "no, I've never heard of this case nor will I go look it up in the library." Yet my disavowing any readership of CrimeNet is not just as valid a claim. Is my verbal agreement to not read any websites dealing with the case somehow inherently less believable than my word to not research the case at the library?
Shouldn't I still be honor bound and even under some sort of threat of perjury to not research the case? If something is published on the internet, does this make it inherently more dangerous than something published in a periodical?
I am very suspect of this Judge's reasoning. Jurors are supposed to operate under instruction from the judge anyway. If a juror does violate thier agreement to not research, ect... then the juror should be penalized. This course of action seems to punish the defendant.
As for the bit about CrimeNet ruining lives... That's another article isn't it? You can seek legal action against a site defaming you right? CrimeNet might be getting a law suit or two eh?
-
Are they dumb, or just technologically impared (Score:2)
"CrimeNet offers details on 4000 convicted criminals gleaned from newspapers and court records"
It says it all right here, the info on CrimeNet isn't to blame. It's not like they are the only ones to have had the information publisized. The problem is that this is just bad judgement from the Judge and his/her consorts.
Problem is that most people are not going to see it "the right way" and are going to scream hell on earth and down with the internet. It's just too easy to blame internet (and computers in general) for the things that go wrong.
What could have been done different?
Before trial the judge tells the jurors what to do and what not to do. I think a judge says something like "thou shalt not investigate in prior offenses of this person" at the jury selection. Why should a website be anything different?
Reading the article I couldn't help but feeling like the judge thought the same thing, therefore he refused to abort the trial at first. Problem is that other people got wind of the case and started meddling, after which the judge suddenly did abort the trial.
<disclaimer>
Ahwell, as you can guess, this is just IMHO so don't blame me if I'm wrong...
</disclaimer>
Socrates
Quite a reasonable decision (Score:2)
When you look at the details of the trial issues, at the end of the article, it makes a lot of sense.
Beyond that, the article raises a lot of intersting AND frightening point. What if an offender has the same name as *you*? Shit, I know there was another guy with the same name AND same age as I in my university, although I never met him -- I discovered that when I applied for a library card: "oh you are already registered". Not me!
Even more crazy, when I was 10 or something, I was living in an appartment, and in the same building there was two married women of the same age and same names!
So this is quite a common situation. Now what happens if one those people is convicted? The legal system sometimes fucks up. But ... if it's a sex-related offense (rape?), it's not even a problem with the legal system, but also with well-thinking vigilante ...
Impartial justice is a modern phenomena (Score:2)
It is only really since people became estranged from each other that this sort of thing became important.
As justice evolved the accused and accusers would often be known to each other. This, like everything, was both good and bad and the legacy of that system still lives with us.
A defence and prosecution try to establish either the good character or evil nature of an accused person in order to colour the jury's or judge's opinion of the accused. Indeed these days "a man of good character" is one who has no previous criminal convictions.
In times gone by your actual reputation would follow you in to the courtroom. Revenge might be taken for your previous behaviour in the community or you might be let off for being an otherwise good person who just let off steam or behave out of character due to external pressure.
Nowadays because people are estranged from each other, the mitigating circumstances are written in to our statute. The law decides in advance why you might be let off for something and it is up to you to prove it, if that is your course of action.
This case seems to highlight a flaw in human nature. Negativity seems to linger longer than positivity (is that a word?). It's hard to imagine a way of balancing. How does someone with a previous killing under their belt gain any sort of positive reputation? Nothing in the world seems as positive as murder is negative so such revelations obviously bias opinion. There is no GoodDeedNet where a list of people who have made positive contributions can be searched.
To attempt to be fair society must err on the side of caution. That is why trials can be dismissed in this way. Information might want to be free but some information manages to get publicity for itself too.
Re:Thats a bizarre interpretation of the law (Score:2)
The past history of a defendant cannot (and should not) be used as evidence. You try someone on the facts, not on their reputation or record.
Jurors are forbidden from looking up details of a defendant in public records etc, but that is not the point. Going to your local library and doing a newspaper article search to see if a defendant has a dubious past is:
1. Time consuming
2. Requires reasonable knowledge of how records offices work, how to use microfiche properly etc.
3. Involves a physical element that makes it easier to trace you, make it more apparent you're doing something wrong.
4. Essentially impractical since you'll be in court all day.
Doing the same on the internet, especially on a site that has been created for just such a purpose is:
1. Fast
2. Can be done at night/evening
3. Does not involve verifiable records - depending on the site it could be pure rumour that you're looking up.
4. Doesn't "feel" like you're doing anything wrong.
Overall, I think there's a good argument that such sites seriously impact the jury process, especially as they become better known.
Currently it is quite practical to stop jurors having access to this sort of information. The internet makes it harder, and while for high profile trials jurors are kept in hotels without access to t.v / newspapers etc no-one can afford to do that for every trial of every local criminal.
It would be a bad world indeed where a juror on a case of, say burglary and assault in their local town when home after the first day of the trial and read on www.tastelesscrimesite.com that the defendant had been 'implicated in a number of fraud cases involving pensioners in the area'. That would surely start to bias the average juror into thinking 'this person is wicked' despite the claim being 1. dubious and 2. irrelevant.
To do the same without the Internet the juror would have had to search maybe three years of the local free paper to find the two inch column that says 'local man implicated in recent pensioner scams'. Something that is unlikely to happen.