Slashdot Log In
Order in the e-Court!
Posted by
michael
on Tue Sep 21, 2004 05:34 PM
from the judge92-gives-voice-to-witness35 dept.
from the judge92-gives-voice-to-witness35 dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
This is a brilliant idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:4, Interesting)
I was on a jury (case of four teenagers breaking ~1000 mailboxes in four counties along the Dixe/Dort Highway. Biggest waste of three days in my life) a few years ago, and you'd be suprised how many times the proceedings had to be inturrupted because a lawyer, the judge, or the jury couldn't hear what was being said clearly. Every time, the court reporter had to stand up and read the last few things that were said. This would sometimes happen two to three times an hour.
Parent
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Faster != Better (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:3, Informative)
And I though justice had nothing to do with money.. Boy how I was wrong.
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:3, Insightful)
What I didn't get is how the guy in the story got death if he pleaded, but I forced myself to read the article and discovered, surprise, surprise, the story didn't get it completely right. The other guy had pled guilty to carjacking and kidnapping, but had insisted that he hadn't killed t
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:4, Insightful)
I see this sort of practice as cheapening the idea of justice, since it practically commands you to plead guilty and take your (potentially unjustly given) lumps, and to hell with any of that truth bollocks. Plus, it's politically excellent since more people will plead guilty, thus increasing the apparent success of the justice system. And you don't have a right to a free lawyer just because the Crown is threatening to prosecute, which means that if you're a bit strapped for cash you have to decide all on your little own. Sigh.
The UK desperately needs a bit more backbone, a bit of basic ethics, a bit less obsessiveness on the "ooh! scary nasty criminals are all around!" front, and a change of political direction; this political grandstanding stuff is just not doing it for me, quite frankly. I'm quite aware that criminals exist - I spent the tech recession working in a booze shop so I could hardly fail to have noticed - but I'm also aware that most of the adult criminals I've come across were pretty good pals of the local cops, that the police have no ability whatsoever to control teenage offenders, and that successful prosecution generally only occurs on the most inoffensive of targets. "Innocent men have nothing to fear" could also be stated as "Innocent men have everything to lose, and are therefore that much more frightened". Unfortunately.
Parent
Lawyers love this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lawyers love this (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Hm (Score:2, Insightful)
I know.. (Score:4, Funny)
(Seriously, though, the right to a fair and speedy trial should be helped by this. Not a troll.)
Re:I know.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think "fair" is ever mentioned, but many faculties are given that could help to make the trial "fair":
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
I second (Score:5, Funny)
My job (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:My job (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it any worse than having the defendant show up with freshly cut hair, a clean shaved face, and in a suit?
Does the jury ever actually see the defendant sitting there (live - not on TV)?
Parent
Re:My job (Score:5, Informative)
It is more like the defendent showing up in a suit, but then getting roughed up by the cops to look more ugly when he stands there.
Parent
Re:My job (Score:4, Insightful)
It is likely that the screens will eventually get used to show graphics to support the prosecution's case: "I put it to you that Joe Sixpack took a knife and stabbed Fed six times" becomes an dramatised computer generated video showing a person, recognisably Joe, taking a knife and stabbing Fred - all with nice sound effects etc.
I suggest that the noble citizens that fill jury benches will be heavily swayed by images like these and will really struggle to tell the difference between something like this and true video evidence.
Parent
Re:My job (Score:5, Interesting)
parent: Is it any worse than having the defendant show up with freshly cut hair, a clean shaved face, and in a suit?
Should it matter how the defendant looks? If we have a system where looks matter, then we need a new system. If someone is white and in a nice suit, should that excuse the person, where the judge thinks "oh, he made a bad mistake, i feel sorry for him", but if it is a poor black teen the judge thinks "miserable evil uneducated basturd, you deserve to suffer for being so dark".
It is like there are two legal systems, one for the rich and one for the poor. One who can afford their own private lawyer, and one who gets a public defender. Let me guess, these monitors will mostly be used with poorer people who can't afford their own attorney to assert their rights.
Parent
Re:My job (Score:2, Informative)
Your not only lying, you didn't even read the articles.
Re:My job (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My job (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look here [maricopa.gov] for a real view of the e-courtroom setups.
The cameras are voice activated, so only the person speaking will appear on the recording. Additionally, these are widely used in civil matters, so there is no "defendant" per se. And a "nice behind-the-scenes" tidbit. The hardware used to capture all of this? Tivo.
Parent
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Judge Sbaitso? (Score:5, Funny)
The honorable judge Dr.Sbaitso, now presiding over the courts [everything2.com]
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?
Parent
death? (Score:4, Insightful)
WHAT???? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:WHAT???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WHAT???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Death penalty must go + suicide is murder as we (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Lawer Needed: Photoshop skills a plus (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Lawer Needed: Photoshop skills a plus (Score:4, Informative)
I will say this, though...the complexity of the digital system, the number of off network systems and password lockouts, etc, means that it's actually MUCH easier to fake a paper document than a digital one. Seriously...there's a bunch of low income college interns walking the stacks of the central file office, doing pulls and purges, and the security is not loose but not tight, either. Anybody can pull up a typewriter, write out a completely new arrest card, stick in a fake photo, and bam! Bye bye arrest record. When I worked there, we had a guy who after working for two weeks was removed because he had an arrest record nobody knew about. He didn't do anything funny in the stacks...but if he'd wanted to, he had two whole weeks to pull it off.
Parent
A great help for juries (Score:4, Insightful)
Three day speed up (Score:4, Funny)
Big deal... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Great, to a point... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
phoning it in (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:phoning it in (Score:3, Insightful)
When I don't have to wait a half hour while a bailiff goes to get the murder weapon because I can view it in 3d without disturbing the evidence, I'm making the trial move more fluidly.
When I can replay the witness' testimony, instead of merely remembering it, and I can detect that moment of hesitation that J
Not that innovative (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Theatrics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Good Lord! (Score:3, Insightful)
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
The solution is to move money over from welfare (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Funny)
A Step Away From Lawyer Theatrics? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
my malpractice suit (Score:3, Funny)
He said, "I'm skilled at angioplasty"
But dragon dictate displayed:
"I KILLED THE FUCKING BASTARD"
Sci-Fi != Reality (Score:3, Interesting)