to be honest whether the judge points it out or not, it should be pretty obvious that "no talking about the case" includes posting about it on facebook
i see no reason why an adult of average intelligence couldn't be expected to easily figure that one out
i doubt this was "they didn't know it wasn't allowed" it was "they were stupid enough to believe what they put on facebook couldn't be seen by everyone"
Casual on
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
to be honest whether the judge points it out or not, it should be pretty obvious that "no talking about the case" includes posting about it on facebook
i see no reason why an adult of average intelligence couldn't be expected to easily figure that one out
i doubt this was "they did't know it wasn't allowed" it was "they were stupid enough to believe what the put on facebook couldn't be seen by everyone"
Couldn't agree more. The internet is about communication.
Remember a similar case from last year, where an academic was jailed for contempt, where I think she was also researching legal principles.
I am not sure the line is always clear. What if I spent 29 minutes one night reading up on Outlaw various explainers about criminal law, which, inevitably, cited recent case law. Then tomorrow I share my findings with the jury or don't
Don't some courts even ask jurors to turn over their phones now to stop them blurting out shit on twitter?
While the court is sitting, maybe. But they'll be handed back at the end of the day when the jury go home. They were talking about it this morning on Today, and only very rarely are juries sequestered these days, so it's not like you can stop a jury from accessing the internet after 5pm rolls around.
If a juror is tweeting while they're sitting in the courtroom everyone should just stop what they're doing and stare at them until they realise and then leave in total shame.
Juries should be shown the Peep Show episode where Jez is on a jury and then asked whether they know what jez did wrong. Anyone who doesn't know can be excused from duty.
Don't some courts even ask jurors to turn over their phones now to stop them blurting out shit on twitter?
While the court is sitting, maybe. But they'll be handed back at the end of the day when the jury go home. They were talking about it this morning on Today, and only very rarely are juries sequestered these days, so it's not like you can stop a jury from accessing the internet after 5pm rolls around.
If a juror is tweeting while they're sitting in the courtroom everyone should just stop what they're doing and stare at them until they realise and then leave in total shame.
Mobiles and cell phones should be confiscated while court is in session, to be honest.
I'm sick and tired of all the times when people are distracted by their mobiles, in any situation. If you're in my line buying something, give ME your fucking attention. If you're sitting in a movie, be considerate of others. If you're driving, stop being a murder machine. If you're in court? Pay attnetion and learn something about the justice system.
Remember a similar case from last year, where an academic was jailed for contempt, where I think she was also researching legal principles.
I am not sure the line is always clear. What if I spent 29 minutes one night reading up on Outlaw various explainers about criminal law, which, inevitably, cited recent case law. Then tomorrow I share my findings with the jury or don't
well adittedly that's more grey than spilling case deets on facebook, but at the same time i'm sure that would be something the judge tells you not to do
she stepped outside her role, she wasn't acting as a lawyer, she was a juror, she doesn't need to look up case law
she needs to hear the testimony, listen to the evidence and make a ruling, nothing more
the answer here is clearly to just brief jurors better
both these cases could have been avoided with two sentences
1) "There is to be no communication of any sort regarding the case while the trial is ongoing, this includes online, via the phone or written correspondence. Violation of this clause will result in a contempt of court charge"
2) "You are to stay within your role as a juror and not access outside materials that could influence your ruling"
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Just put juries in the Big Brother House while the trial is on.
BAM
Next problem
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
IIRC she spoke English as a second language and was also an academic, for her to not feel she understood a point and to take steps, given that a judge can appear intimidating is all quite understandable
IIRC she spoke English as a second language and was also an academic, for her to not feel she understood a point and to take steps, given that a judge can appear intimidating is all quite understandable
i guess i just feel that it's not an unreasonable thing to expect people to know
i know these things and i've never studied law or the court system, everything i know about the courts is literally common knowledge
Everything I know about the court system I learned from Perry Mason. If I am ever on jury duty and the case doesn't end with an avuncular and portly lawyer who bears himself with dignity forcing a key witness to tearfully admit they are the murderer and the shamefaced prosecutor asking the judge to dismiss all charges I will be gutted.
Everything I know about the court system I learned from Perry Mason. If I am ever on jury duty and the case doesn't end with an avuncular and portly lawyer who bears himself with dignity forcing a key witness to tearfully admit they are the murderer and the shamefaced prosecutor asking the judge to dismiss all charges I will be gutted.
It would be great if that happened and the prosecutor says "In light of this, we withdraw the charges of littering in the second degree"
Everything I know about the court system I learned from Perry Mason. If I am ever on jury duty and the case doesn't end with an avuncular and portly lawyer who bears himself with dignity forcing a key witness to tearfully admit they are the murderer and the shamefaced prosecutor asking the judge to dismiss all charges I will be gutted.
I want it to be like a drawing room scene in Poirot, where he works his way around the room making everyone sweat until he bears down on the true murderer who then puts on the haughty evil voice and proudly proclaims his/her master plan (see that Mitchel and Webb thing Poirot sketch for details)
IIRC she spoke English as a second language and was also an academic, for her to not feel she understood a point and to take steps, given that a judge can appear intimidating is all quite understandable
i guess i just feel that it's not an unreasonable thing to expect people to know
i know these things and i've never studied law or the court system, everything i know about the courts is literally common knowledge
No offence intended but I suspect your knowledge of criminal law concepts is not as wide as you think. Hell mine isn't and I've spent a lot of time studying it. I know I would find the judge's directions educational
It would be great if that happened and the prosecutor says "In light of this, we withdraw the charges of littering in the second degree"
The real litterer is dragged from the court, sobbing, by burly and unsympathetic police officers. Perry shakes his head as they leave, sorry at the depths of human depravity that can make a normal person turn to littering. The original defendant, tears in her eyes, hugs Perry and knows this is a debt she can never repay. Perry is modest, as usual, and says the real thanks should go to Della, as she was the one who gave him the vital clue he needed to pierce the web of deception. The rest of the courtroom is divided between cheers of joy and shock at what has transpired.
there is nothing unfair or worrying or in the slightest bit wrong about someone being told that they cannot talk about this case, or you will face contempt charges, then them doing exactly that and facing just that.
It's justice and law, distilled.
Most of the time, people aren't told explicitly by a judge not to break the law in just the way that they then proceed to do.
It's not a useful analogy. No one thinks that driving 200mph is legal. An idiot might well imagine that a facebook update does not constitute 'discussing the case outside the court'.
It's not a useful analogy. No one thinks that driving 200mph is legal. An idiot might well imagine that a facebook update does not constitute 'discussing the case outside the court'.
I don't even believe that an idiot could imagine that, no.
That they could believe it didn't matter and that no-one would care if they did, that I can believe.
IIRC she spoke English as a second language and was also an academic, for her to not feel she understood a point and to take steps, given that a judge can appear intimidating is all quite understandable
i guess i just feel that it's not an unreasonable thing to expect people to know
i know these things and i've never studied law or the court system, everything i know about the courts is literally common knowledge
No offence intended but I suspect your knowledge of criminal law concepts is not as wide as you think. Hell mine isn't and I've spent a lot of time studying it. I know I would find the judge's directions educational
that is exactly my point
i know nothing about the courts you couldnt expect everyone to know
i am absolutly not an expert
and even i know "don't talk about the case outside the court" is a big deal
It's not a useful analogy. No one thinks that driving 200mph is legal. An idiot might well imagine that a facebook update does not constitute 'discussing the case outside the court'.
it's been pretty well established ignorance of the law is not a defence
must have been disconcerting for them to have an audience, though.
anyway, this reminded me of that, since apart from special circumstances, court isn't usually closed in Norway
which is why we could sit in on it, and get the court documents and all that, which are public
but as the teacher explained, for privacy's sake, court documents and the details of the case are to be considered confidential - until someone asks about it.
So like we got to sit in on it and got all the documents just for asking, but we were also asked not to spread it around.
sitting in on a trial is something i wouldn't mind doing just once just to see how it goes
but who has the time?
im not taking a day off work just for that
I'm glad I took law in high school
the other classes, socio-economics and politics, were also interesting, but socio-economics I was too much of a slacker about and politics was basically just our lunch-time discussions, but in a class
law is the thing I remember the most of
and it was interesting!
all in all I think I did okay when it comes to taking bullshit stuff in high school that ended up not being at all what was required for the field I chose to study.
it's been pretty well established ignorance of the law is not a defence.
Ignorance of the law doesn't preclude the possibility that the law could do with clarifying itself and letting people know in line with real world developments that this, this and also this fall under the category of 'discussing something outside of the courtroom'.
As you said, the jury probably needed to have been more informed about what was and wasn't acceptable. The vast majority of juries don't seem to need this clarification (the guy on the news said under ten prosecutions have gone ahead about people breaking silence on social media), but hey we'll just jail those doofuses seems an overly harsh way of dealing with someone when a warning might have prevented it. I strongly suspect that before social media people freely ignored the directive to not discuss the case, they just did it in such a way that didn't leave documented evidence. Chatting to the wife about it? Bet they did. Gossip with the neighbour? Yup.
The ignorance is like the gran in the Royal Family asking whether a vegetarian wouldn't like a ham sandwhich. Just a little bit of ham. Surely that doesn't count?
Like Kalkino said, social media offers up a myriad number of new and interesting ways for people to ruin their lives. Simply watching them do so while eating popcorn and enjoying the spectacle is well and good, but it couldn't hurt to maybe look at ways to encourage people to not do this before they face jailtime.
sitting in on a trial is something i wouldn't mind doing just once just to see how it goes
but who has the time?
im not taking a day off work just for that
it would have to be a trial you cared about.
most cases in the US anyway are pretty straight forward.
he was driving while over the limit and was charged with DUI.
he owned a gun when it was illegal for him to do so.
he punched the other guy in the face and we have witnesses and a picture of the guys face.
the trial I was at was about a [special kind of] theft of a car by the accused to go to somewhere with some people and buy drugs or something and there was a lengthy cross-examination about who the fourth person who was in the car was and about him nothing was said - defense advocate explaining that the rules of criminals say that talk freely about yourself and the others who got caught, people who got away, got away and said that he could risk retribution by talking.
Wasn't talked about by the judges after, but he doesn't legally have to say anything, so.
also after lunch, the next point was some narcotics found in his house, where he agreed that this amount was his, but this other stash he knew nothing about and was stashed there by someone else
judges were in doubt that there was such love and trust among him and his compatriots that they wouldn't even say "hey Imma put my pills in this urn here alright? Don't take 'em."
Posts
i see no reason why an adult of average intelligence couldn't be expected to easily figure that one out
i doubt this was "they didn't know it wasn't allowed" it was "they were stupid enough to believe what they put on facebook couldn't be seen by everyone"
Couldn't agree more. The internet is about communication.
Remember a similar case from last year, where an academic was jailed for contempt, where I think she was also researching legal principles.
I am not sure the line is always clear. What if I spent 29 minutes one night reading up on Outlaw various explainers about criminal law, which, inevitably, cited recent case law. Then tomorrow I share my findings with the jury or don't
no, you're a fucking idiot, enjoy your contempt of court charge
While the court is sitting, maybe. But they'll be handed back at the end of the day when the jury go home. They were talking about it this morning on Today, and only very rarely are juries sequestered these days, so it's not like you can stop a jury from accessing the internet after 5pm rolls around.
If a juror is tweeting while they're sitting in the courtroom everyone should just stop what they're doing and stare at them until they realise and then leave in total shame.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Mobiles and cell phones should be confiscated while court is in session, to be honest.
I'm sick and tired of all the times when people are distracted by their mobiles, in any situation. If you're in my line buying something, give ME your fucking attention. If you're sitting in a movie, be considerate of others. If you're driving, stop being a murder machine. If you're in court? Pay attnetion and learn something about the justice system.
well adittedly that's more grey than spilling case deets on facebook, but at the same time i'm sure that would be something the judge tells you not to do
she stepped outside her role, she wasn't acting as a lawyer, she was a juror, she doesn't need to look up case law
she needs to hear the testimony, listen to the evidence and make a ruling, nothing more
both these cases could have been avoided with two sentences
1) "There is to be no communication of any sort regarding the case while the trial is ongoing, this includes online, via the phone or written correspondence. Violation of this clause will result in a contempt of court charge"
2) "You are to stay within your role as a juror and not access outside materials that could influence your ruling"
BAM
Next problem
IIRC she spoke English as a second language and was also an academic, for her to not feel she understood a point and to take steps, given that a judge can appear intimidating is all quite understandable
i guess i just feel that it's not an unreasonable thing to expect people to know
i know these things and i've never studied law or the court system, everything i know about the courts is literally common knowledge
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It would be great if that happened and the prosecutor says "In light of this, we withdraw the charges of littering in the second degree"
I want it to be like a drawing room scene in Poirot, where he works his way around the room making everyone sweat until he bears down on the true murderer who then puts on the haughty evil voice and proudly proclaims his/her master plan (see that Mitchel and Webb thing Poirot sketch for details)
No offence intended but I suspect your knowledge of criminal law concepts is not as wide as you think. Hell mine isn't and I've spent a lot of time studying it. I know I would find the judge's directions educational
The real litterer is dragged from the court, sobbing, by burly and unsympathetic police officers. Perry shakes his head as they leave, sorry at the depths of human depravity that can make a normal person turn to littering. The original defendant, tears in her eyes, hugs Perry and knows this is a debt she can never repay. Perry is modest, as usual, and says the real thanks should go to Della, as she was the one who gave him the vital clue he needed to pierce the web of deception. The rest of the courtroom is divided between cheers of joy and shock at what has transpired.
Justice has prevailed again.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
[chat] moves slowly in the mornings.
anyway, posting shit about the case on facebook, because yeah the dude in the wig said not to but fuck him he doesn't read my facebook anyway
is not really much easier than fuck it I'll drive at 200, it's not like I'll get caught
It's justice and law, distilled.
Most of the time, people aren't told explicitly by a judge not to break the law in just the way that they then proceed to do.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I don't even believe that an idiot could imagine that, no.
That they could believe it didn't matter and that no-one would care if they did, that I can believe.
If it turns out that they probably actually did not know, I would have people examine their head for science because that's impressive.
that is exactly my point
i know nothing about the courts you couldnt expect everyone to know
i am absolutly not an expert
and even i know "don't talk about the case outside the court" is a big deal
it's been pretty well established ignorance of the law is not a defence
How's the new home?
Also: Hello.
was informative.
must have been disconcerting for them to have an audience, though.
anyway, this reminded me of that, since apart from special circumstances, court isn't usually closed in Norway
which is why we could sit in on it, and get the court documents and all that, which are public
but as the teacher explained, for privacy's sake, court documents and the details of the case are to be considered confidential - until someone asks about it.
So like we got to sit in on it and got all the documents just for asking, but we were also asked not to spread it around.
but who has the time?
im not taking a day off work just for that
stahp
you just pooped
you don't need to poop again
stahp
it would have to be a trial you cared about.
most cases in the US anyway are pretty straight forward.
he was driving while over the limit and was charged with DUI.
he owned a gun when it was illegal for him to do so.
he punched the other guy in the face and we have witnesses and a picture of the guys face.
I'm glad I took law in high school
the other classes, socio-economics and politics, were also interesting, but socio-economics I was too much of a slacker about and politics was basically just our lunch-time discussions, but in a class
law is the thing I remember the most of
and it was interesting!
all in all I think I did okay when it comes to taking bullshit stuff in high school that ended up not being at all what was required for the field I chose to study.
Ignorance of the law doesn't preclude the possibility that the law could do with clarifying itself and letting people know in line with real world developments that this, this and also this fall under the category of 'discussing something outside of the courtroom'.
As you said, the jury probably needed to have been more informed about what was and wasn't acceptable. The vast majority of juries don't seem to need this clarification (the guy on the news said under ten prosecutions have gone ahead about people breaking silence on social media), but hey we'll just jail those doofuses seems an overly harsh way of dealing with someone when a warning might have prevented it. I strongly suspect that before social media people freely ignored the directive to not discuss the case, they just did it in such a way that didn't leave documented evidence. Chatting to the wife about it? Bet they did. Gossip with the neighbour? Yup.
The ignorance is like the gran in the Royal Family asking whether a vegetarian wouldn't like a ham sandwhich. Just a little bit of ham. Surely that doesn't count?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
If you wanted practical you studied wood or metal working, agriculture, or accounting
the trial I was at was about a [special kind of] theft of a car by the accused to go to somewhere with some people and buy drugs or something and there was a lengthy cross-examination about who the fourth person who was in the car was and about him nothing was said - defense advocate explaining that the rules of criminals say that talk freely about yourself and the others who got caught, people who got away, got away and said that he could risk retribution by talking.
Wasn't talked about by the judges after, but he doesn't legally have to say anything, so.
also after lunch, the next point was some narcotics found in his house, where he agreed that this amount was his, but this other stash he knew nothing about and was stashed there by someone else
judges were in doubt that there was such love and trust among him and his compatriots that they wouldn't even say "hey Imma put my pills in this urn here alright? Don't take 'em."
Nice and big and so much to do.
Like, overwhelmingly much to do. O_O