Slashdot Mirror
Order in the e-Court!
theodp writes "Every word spoken in the e-Courtroom where Branden Basham is on trial for his life appears immediately before the judge on a computer screen. There's a flat-screen monitor between every two seats in the jury box, a witness-box monitor with touch-screen features, and large-screen monitors for public viewing. Lawyers say e-Courtrooms help reduce trial time by making evidence display and tracking documents more efficient. 'It made the Chadrick Fulks' case three to five days shorter,' said an Assistant U.S. Attorney, referring to Basham's co-defendant, who plead guilty and was sentenced to death."
In fact, while we're at it, let's just put the whole thing up on a Fox News Poll... no better justice than majority!
I wonder what they'll have to start charging to make up for the loss in billable hours?
I don't know if I should laugh, be sick, "tsk tsk" the story, or contemplate why the hell we really exist.
..I'm relieved at the fact that we can get people into the chair more quickly. Texas prisons are going to have a line out the door!
(Seriously, though, the right to a fair and speedy trial should be helped by this. Not a troll.)
that eMotion.
I work for CVision (the closed circuit IP based system used in the article). Frankly, this type of technology has to be stopped. When we're testing the systems in new installations we're ordered to cut back on the gamma and hike up the contrast for the cameras that focus on the defendant.
The reason? To make the defendant more menacing.
Cameras focused at the witness stand are lightened up and softened somewhat to make the witness appear more likeable. It's a total joke, fortunately my contract ends in just shy of 3 months.
Technology is fine, but this is an outright abuse.
Where's the e-judge? A non-bribable A.I. would go a long way toward achieving proper justice in this country... Bonus points if it's capable of throwing the book (literally or figuratively, I don't care which) at both clients and lawyers bringing stupid lawsuits.
His accomplise pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death, the article says. I always thought that the whole point of a guilty plea was to lower the severity of the maximum sentence.
referring to Basham's co-defendant, who plead guilty and was sentenced to death
Seriously, what's wrong with this guy? Why would he plead guilty without some type of consideration?
If I'm facing the death penalty, I'd at least take my chances with a trial. There's no point in pleading guilty KNOWING that the state is seeking execution.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I really don't think I want to be judged on the skill of my lawer in photoshop and powerpoint...
Seriously, powerpoint is one of the things that NASA reports have blamed for the lack of attention to some details... I really think that the old, hash though paper way keeps the legal system more secure from tampering... (as much as it can be anyhow)
I don't see anyone would be up in arms about this. Keeping track of evidence and testimonies, paying attention is difficult, to say the least, for individuals with no legal training. A method of keeping track of evidence to help juries make reasoned decisions will lead to more fair trials. Additionally, resolving issues faster is in the interests of everyone involved: the defendant, the plaintiff, and the jury. The only ones who lose are lawyers who charge by the hour!
That was when using a 2GHz CPU. Now if we used a dual 3GHz CPU with a better graphics card, the whole trial could be over in 15 seconds.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
A trial is becoming a more rare occurance in U.S. District courts. Most judges now use summary judgments to knock out cases before they even get to trial. It's easier, cheaper, and clears the dockets faster. Most cases are won in pre-trial motions where technology doesn't really matter.
An aside: in the rare event a case does make it to trial, the new technology doesn't change the fact that all a trial is is just two conflicting stories of the same event. The lawyer who can tell the story better, with more passion and zeal, who really, truly believes in their client's cause will always win over PowerPoint, guaranteed.
Technology in the courtroom is great up to the point where we are called to function without it, and find we are unable to do so. For example, imagine tryng a murder or rape case without the use of DNA evidence. The defendant may have confessed, and performed the act in front of a nun and two priests... but the jury expects expensive DNA testing, and you cannot get a convition without it.
Likewise with courtroom technology - When lawyers and jurors are over-used to the presence of touch screens and video equipment, what will they do when called to a courtroom in rural South Dakota that has barely the budget to keep the furnace running?
Also consider that, where human beings are doing the work, someone is ultimately responsible for a mistake. Court reporters and Notary Publics post bonds and can loos big money if they make a mistake. When is the last time your software vendor assumed liability for a computer crash?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
The honorable judge Dr.Sbaitso, now presiding over the courts
Lawyer 1 : Your honorable Sbaitso, a bloody glove was found in the bushes of Branden Basham's front yard. If you'll just look at exhi..
Judge Sbaitso : Yes. But why?
Lawyer 1 : The glove was found within a 50 meter perimeter of the murder. Er, uh, if you'll just look at exhi..
Judge Sbaitso : I am just a simple computer program without a math-coprocessor.
Lawyer 1 : Your honor, if you would simply look at exhibit A
Judge Sbaitso : Yes, but you could be mistaken.
Judge Sbaitso : Did you know you can change my colors?
"You and your third dimension."
"Confronting your accuser" and "facing a jury of your peers" works both ways. Human communication is extremely high bandwidth, a gestalt of not only extremely high resolution sights and sounds, but also smells, odd as that might be to consider. In-person communications don't have the distracting "grids" that communications technologies impose on the experience, or other distracting problems like color curves and transmission glitches. Then there's the selection of subject of the communications: you have to look at the cropped content the recorder sends you, not at the subject's twitching foot, or your neighbor's incredulous face. And rather than face a camera to compose your message, you face another person, who's facing you.
People are not nearly sophisticated enought to ignore the noise introduced by these technologies, and to notice the edited experiences they ignore. Does "can you hear me now?" mean anything to anyone? We can barely use these technologies in a cooperative conference call, with little more than "where should we meet for lunch?" on the line. It's unconscionable that people's lives are on the line with these technologies in the mix.
--
make install -not war
To be honest, they are using technologies that have been in use in schools and many other places for a long time. It looks like most of what they are doing is letting everyone get a better look at the evidence by aiming a camera at it, and networking the court's stenographer. This kind of stuff isn't really newsworthy to me, as we've been using the same kind of technology at my high school for over four years.
However, at least they're providing a users manual for the thing. I've seen quite a few teachers waste time with technology that they don't know how to deal with, and IT people who dont feel like taking the time out to ensure that things are setup correctly in the first place.
I've thought for a long time that the entire case should be recorded and then shown to a jury. Both sides can present their best cases and nobody can get away with theatrics.
Atty 1: "So has your buggering of small animals caused harm to your eyesight making you an unfit witness?"
Atty 2: "Objection"
Judge: "Sustained - the jury is instructed to disregard."
Atty 1: "No further questions"
Any question/response ruled inadmissable would be deleted - no chance of influencing the jury either intentionally or by accident.
If the jury pool is tainted or unable to reach a verdict, just seat a new jury and replay the recordings.
If evidence or judge's instructions are ruled incorrect or inadmissable by a higher court just edit the recording and show it to a new jury. This also eliminates the problem of a witness who dies before a retrial.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Plead guilty and was sentanced to death?!?
I dunno, I tend to be very anti-death-penalty. But, when someone comes into the court room and tries to get off on a technicality, or convince the jury to reduce the charge to manslaughter, or whatnot, I think we'd be more likely to hand out a death sentance.
When someone walks in and is like, "Yes, I admit I did it", how does that work? Thank you for saving the taxpayers lots of money by not going through a trial, and thank you for being upfront and honest about your crime; now, die!
It's not punishment, it's prevention, right?
~Will
sig?
The article says he plead guilty to kidnapping but not murder.
Cut the welfare budget by 50% at a minimum and transfer the money over in each state to building more courts, hiring more prosecutors, judges and public defenders (good ones) and pass laws requiring the police to prioritize all property crimes above anything specious like drug crimes. Why? It'll kill two birds with one stone: slow trial dockets and much of the poverty in America.
What I am talking about isn't the shrill left wing bullshit of "OMG they want to lock up all the poor people" but rather a strict libertarianization of Giuliani's "Broken Windows" enforcement program. The idea is that you prosecute all minor property offenses and you treat even something as simple as an inner city teen stealing an inner city child's bike as a "gateway crime." It does two things: tries to nip the problem of repeat offenders in the bud by showing them the law always applies, and it shows the poor that the law can work for them just like the rich.
Without strong property protections, the poor don't have an incentive to believe that hard work really pays off. For every cop that genuinely believes that they have a moral imperative to protect that inner city single mother and her kids' property, there are probably 5 that feel that it's "not worth it the trouble to the tax payers." To which I, as a voting Libertarian, have to ask, "then WTF am I doing paying your salary and letting you hide behind a badge?" Seriously, sometimes with this kind of attitude I think we'd be better off in most areas in America with firing 90% of the cops and letting the average law abiding citizen own military-grade infantry weapons and waste any mofo that tries to steal from them. As Heinlein said, an armed society, is a polite society.
Seriously, just cut the welfare programs, gun control laws, let people use force to defend their property and make the cops accountable for when they don't do a damn thing to take down petty property rights offenders. Within a few years, the poverty in much of the urban areas in America will sharply decline, along with the crime rates, especially the violent crime.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
This was just a local trouble but they were still using the interactive/plasma screens for witness protection, so I wouldn't be surprised at all that these guys are being video-trialled.
Wonder if I could get the link to this trial, though...
You've watched wayy too much Star Trek. The Death Penalty is neither 'primitive' nor 'barbaric'. It is, in fact, the honest response to the fact that sometimes people can do things for which there is no recompense and after which that person can never again be trusted to act as a human being. The Death Penalty isn't primarily a 'deterrent', it isn't a 'punishment', it's the best means of insuring that a person who has utterly broken from civilization and proven so through his actions can never again harm an innocent person.
What can you say of a society that pretends there is 'some good in all of us', or that evil people deserve 'mercy'? Or worse yet, that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil'? Is that 'advanced'? Is that 'enlightened'?
The idea that only a 'primitive' society could still have the Death Penalty is bizarre, bordering on the contemptibly stupid.
In other words, I'm sure it's all the rage on college campuses.
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
A lot of people seem to have gotten their panties in a bunch about the right to face your accusser, etc. Please RTFAs. This isn't some system where the jury is in one room, the judge is some other location, the attornies in their office, etc. This is an electronic system that is put in place inside the courtroom to make proceedings faster. The fundamental system is unchanged.
I've long believed that an important step toward greater justice and less waste of time would be to forbid attorneys from appearing before the jury. Questions to witnesses should be submitted in a way that the jury neither sees nor hears the attorney. It's important for the jury to know the questions and to see and hear how the witness reacts and responds, and how the accused reacts. But there's no need to let the lawyer do their song and dance, putting spin on questions and role-playing how they want the jury to react to the answers.
Really good lawyers know how to size up jurors, decide which of them to "work on" and play to them individually, knowing that a purely psychological reaction by one person can deadlock the result. Technology like this being installed in courtrooms would make it physically possible to move the lawyer offstage. But I doubt very much that the Johnny Cochrans of the world will let go of their bread and butter merely for the sake of justice.
*Sigh* When will the death penalty ever be abandoned in the few remaining countries that still have it?
Who said I was for the death penalty? The last execution in my country was in 1962. It was removed from civilian law in 1976 and from military law in 1998. I think it's a pointless form of punishment, does nothing to deter crimes, and has resulted in too many innocent people being executed.
And IMHO, there's nothing honourable in throwing away something that you don't own; that's why suicide is a crime in many countries.
You don't own your own life? Why should others be allowed to decide when my life ends? I didn't really explain my point very well. If you know you killed someone else and have a choice between killing yourself and going through trial, killing yourself saves the family of the victim the grief of going through trial, saves the state from spending resources on the trial, and saves the executioner from having to live with himself. The goal is to lessen the amount of suffering for everyone involved.
Just my take on it.
Can we all watch the E-execution?
A doctor goes to court for a malpractice suit. Now he's screwed because dragon dictate didn't understand him:
He said, "I'm skilled at angioplasty"
But dragon dictate displayed:
"I KILLED THE FUCKING BASTARD"
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
We had a trial practice class when I was in law school, and this guy came in with some snazzy graphics he'd done for a DA's office somewhere... the problem with some of the use of courtroom technology is that juries are likely to believe "oh, this is how it happened" instead of "oh, this is how it could have happened" because they can see it played out for them on the screen.
I am part of what I hope is a growing number of people who think that "Powerpoint and Technology In the Courtroom" is actually a great leap backwards, and not a step forwards.
When prosecutors can out-spend a defendant and get super computer graphics to snow the jury into snuffing reasonable doubt, where's the justice in that?