Slashdot Mirror


Should Smartphones Be Allowed In Court?

coondoggie writes "Federal courts have been debating how much freedom users of smartphones and portable wireless devices in general should have in a federal courthouse. Some say they should be banned outright, while others say they should be allowed, but their use curtailed (PDF). Unregulated use of smartphones has resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors and fines in some case."

5 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well... by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps they should spend that idle time pondering the importance of the decisions they will be making and the impacts those decisions will have on the various parties involved -- and taking stock of their own capacity to be objective, their own internalized biases, and personal foibles, in order to offer a fairer verdict at the end of the process. Instead of playing Angry Birds. Just a thought.

  2. Re:Alternative approach by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, you think it's okay for jurors to, on their own, access information pertinent to the case, without giving the defense or prosecution an opportunity to examine that information and discuss it in court? You think people should be convicted based on secret information their attorneys didn't even know about? Nice...

  3. Re:Alternative approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So are you saying they should throw out all rules for evidence such as speculation, hearsay, conjecture, etc.?

    Jurors are charged with making a ruling based on the evidence presented not the "evidence" they can Google.

  4. Re:Wrong by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Problem with that is that our culture is gaining a sense of entitlement thanks to the "always connected" fad. How do you convince people that it's wrong to use tech in courtrooms when everything else is telling them that it's their God-given right to have 24-7 access to Twitter? I too believe in treating the disease before the symptoms, but this goes much deeper than - as one poster put it - jurors playing Angry Birds. People first need to realise that just because they can do something doesn't always mean they should, which may sound like common sense but seems to be lacking in the general population.

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  5. Re:Alternative approach by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whether the judge controls the information is beside the point. The point is, the defense needs the opportunity to address the information in court. I don't understand how replacing one potential problem with a much, much bigger problem helps anything.