- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Jurors now Google defendants' names during a trial, look up legal and scientific terms for themselves, Facebook "friend" other members of the jury, or get matched on internet dating sites with expert witnesses. One juror even went so far as to hold a poll on Facebook, giving the facts of the cases and asking her "friends" to vote on the defendant's guilt. What do these things mean for the future of the "impartial" jury? Read More
Such an important topic
Thank you for posting this. It's an incredibly important subject most folks outside the criminal justice system never think about. I'm particularly interested in the intersection of new/social media and criminal justice, so thank you for the informative post.
You're very welcome, Pamela...
...the paper presentation was wonderful too, much more than I could relate here.
Trial by Jury is a flawed concept
The whole concept of a jury - twelve people speaking with the voice of one - is a catataxic error. The 'unanimous' verdict can only be reached by the strong willed jurors bullying the weak. Recent research from the University of Portsmouth suggests that 3 juries of 4 people each would be a better system. See here for more:
http://www.catataxis.com/index.php/trial-by-jury/
Post new comment