Order in the e-Court! 286
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."
Hm (Score:2, Insightful)
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:This is a brilliant idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
A great help for juries (Score:4, Insightful)
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 passion and zeal, who really, truly believes in their client's cause will always win over PowerPoint, guaranteed.
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?
Re:WHAT???? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 the girl.
Re:WHAT???? (Score:1, Insightful)
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
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sci-Fi != Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the purpose of Justice but to insure that no one gets wronged? Killing a killer will not bring back the victims, nor it will make restitution to the victims' families. Justice is best served when the least number of people get harmed in any way. Indeed they are. But one cannot explain those concepts to a primitive mind any more than one can explain music to a deaf or colour to a blind. Well, perhaps it is a concept a bit more advanced than what your brain can handle... Truly spoken like an Ozarks uneducated redneck. How's your coon dog? Doggone? Well, you ain't playin' possum, boy! And when are you gonna fix that '67 Chevy, the one that's closest to your trailer, chickenboner [chickenboner.com]?
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 have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
Re:WHAT???? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
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 Juror 5 notices and I didn't on the replay, I might change my mind.
This technology opens WAY more doors than it closes. And you're complaining because of the colour balance? Man, last time I was on a jury one woman was near blind and another guy barely spoke English...if technology can bring them a little more information in any respect, it would be unconscionable NOT to use it. Shit, I'm sorry it's not some 3d cube with fractal resolution, but getting this out NOW, so people can use it NOW, is way more important than arguing about poor framing of the shot that you'd otherwise never see.
Oh, and this is technology to AUGMENT -- not REPLACE -- real live testimonies. It's so you don't have to rely on 12 hazy memories when the witness blinks three times and swallows before lying. You still see the live action deposition...and then you get instant replay for that second you were yawning.
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.
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:1, Insightful)
And without a lot of money you can't afford a good lawyer. So for many justice is blind.