Slashdot Mirror
Melbourne Trial Aborted Due To Crime Web Site
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?
With the advent of the home PC, and internet based news coming in faster than stories can be edited, perhaps this will help set a new standard for Jury Selection. I'm pretty sure similar ideas have been rolling around in US judges/attorneys heads for a while.
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
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Ignoring the obvious possibility of flaming you until you go away and stop telling me i am immoral, i shall again ask the question:
How did you arrive at the conclusion that (paraphrased) many programers are imoral?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Yknow that the abortion rate in Kansas is fast approaching 1 per woman-lifetime?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I think, more importantly than love thy neighbour, would be the passage "judge not, lest ye be judged." Isn't that in the bible somewhere? It seems to me that our fine Christian disciple has taken it upon himself to encroach upon two of the bible's most basic ideals. Open heart - open mind.
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.
Damnit, i post as an AC because i think it'll get moderated down, and it gains 4 points! Now this one will get moderated down because it's OT and redundunt. Whats a Karma whore to do? ;)
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Do you wish to pay with your reputation of others entertainment. CrimeNet is propably mostly entertaining, but how about privacy... the article noted that people on CrimeNets 'blacklist' had had a hard time getting jobs etc.
I admit that the ciminals must be punished but not with eternal mark on their foreheads.
Parents Against Kuro5hin
This is just another excuse for Austalia (its government) to censor the Net down under.
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.
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
This is fact, as substantiated in the Bible.
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?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
It's a good job it wasn't Larry Flint on trial. Try finding a jury who hadn't seen a porn website...
Last time I was on Jury duty, we were on the honor system to not discuss or research our case in the intrest of a fair trial. From the article I gather this is virtually the only concern aborting this retrial. When screened for jury duty last time I was asked a series of questions to determine my bias. I was also asked on the honor system to not do any research, visit crime scenes, or discuss the case...
// Zarf //
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?
-
[signature]