Lord Chief Justice: internet generation could be unsuitable as jurors

Lord Chief Justice: internet generation could be unsuitable as jurors

technology.timesonline.co.uk

The internet generation is not used to listening for long periods and so could be unsuitable as jurors, the Lord Chief Justice has said.

Lord Judge said that many young people are “technically proficient” and obtain “much information from the internet”.

That meant that they were “not listening, they are reading,” he said in a lecture to the University of Hertfordshire.

“One potential problem is whether, learning as they do in this way, they will be accustomed, as we were, to listening for prolonged periods.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

Seems to me they are afraid of their juries not being the ignorant, complacent, controlled people they are used to having. Either that or they are looking for yet another way to demonize the internet.

Studies have shown that people who use the internet tend to be smarter, do a search and see for yourself.

Just another example of narrow-minded old people with a prejudice against younger, smarter people.
I hope I get called for jury duty now so I can show them this article and tell them to stuff it.

technology.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

My thoughts exactly, how would the courts handle jurors who are used to speaking their mind and arguing for what they think instead of being pressured into what somebody else thinks?

Originally posted by ashamedamerican


Seems to me they are afraid of their juries not being the ignorant, complacent, controlled people they are used to having. Either that or they are looking for yet another way to demonize the internet.

Studies have shown that people who use the internet tend to be smarter, do a search and see for yourself.

Just another example of narrow-minded old people with a prejudice against younger, smarter people.

I hope I get called for jury duty now so I can show them this article and tell them to stuff it.

technology.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow there hold your horses. While he isn't justified he has a point. The internet generation is on a binge for information. We process and compile it best then no others. Yet it is us that would also change this information to represent what it isn't. Major conspiracies theories begin because of the illegitimate modification of information. Speculations have a source and that source is damaged information.

Yes studies have shown that internet users are smarter but we also tend to be more naive. Prancing around believing we know everything. Our ego is as big as our heads. It's not that we aren't good at listening it's just that we don't want to listen. When someone presents an argument that is against our own opinions we brush it off as the other party being foolish. A prime example of this, is right here on ATS. Just look at the fights that take place in threads because people are unwilling to listen.

“We assume that the direction is accepted and obeyed, although inevitably from time to time an individual juror will disregard the direction and make his own private inquiries,” he said. In one case, he said, there was evidence of internet use in a rape trial and the conviction was quashed.

He was wrong in assuming the tendencies of all internet users and should have stated his words clearly. You would also be wrong thinking that this was prejudice against "younger smarter" people. They are no smarter or dumber then us then we are to them. Respect your elders you may learn a lot from them. The notion that with age comes stupidity would be a grave mistake if it was practiced by the youngsters around the world. We would be the stupid ones for not learning from the mistakes of the "narrow-minded old people".

-Ign0RanT

[edit on 9-11-2008 by Ign0rant]

reply to post by Ign0rant



Well if I had a choice of peers, I'm sure I'd opt for a jury made up of ATS users than white van man who reads nothing but the Sun/Mirror never misses an episode of their favourite soap and believed everything Tony Blair told him .

... this is a problem?

So what, they read more than they listen... so what. Courts already have someone typing out everything being said... plug it into a monitor for the jury.

Done.


Oh right... sorry... that would make it pretty obvious to the jury when the lawyers are lying... cause it can be re-read. lol.

Now I see their problem.

They can't lie to us. Right.

So maybe they just want the Judges to make the decisions ..no more a Jury of your peers ..

There is an Agenda here ..wonder what there suggestion will be .

Almost all of our young now are unable to sit still anyway (Internet or not)
And they sure cant concentrait on any one thing very long ..
Which is why they are all being led towards all the modern day pills that are supposed to help them with this problem ..
Which in my opinion has not helped much at all ...especially when they are all also addicted to the newest and latest "Energy Drinks"
Which is why some of our younger generation are so hyper to begin with .

I question whether this judge even has ever been on the internet. But people like this judge are definitely the reason that the government hates the internet and want it closed off to that dangerous idea of free speech. We have the most dangerous people in power right now because they are aware they are aware they will lose it to the people as long as the internet is so widely accessible, and I don't think they will hand it over to we the people without a good fight. Knowledge is power, and the internet is knowledge.

'The knowledge generation may be unsuitable as jurors.'

[edit on 9-11-2008 by truthquest]

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Seems to me they are afraid of their juries not being the ignorant, complacent, controlled people they are used to having. Either that or they are looking for yet another way to demonize the internet.

Why, because the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney are all in cahoots against the defendant and working together to sway/brainwash everyone in the jury to act upon their subliminal messages and brilliant use of rhetoric?

You have it all wrong! They're not trying to demonize the internet! They're trying to demonize reading! What they really want to do is burn all the libraries down and have people only watch TV, that way, everyone will be perfectly conditioned to listen for long periods of time.

Because, as you have so ingeniously figured out, they want to condition society to be able to make decisions based upon spoken word.

Obvious conspiracy!

.

Although I think the judge did go too far on his assumptions, I think he may have a point.

Reading is done at the speed of the reader, listening is done at the speed of the speaker, so the ones listening must wait for the speaker or they must be quick enough to follow what is being said, although it's the same person doing the reading and the listening, the difference in medium may affect the person.

I say this because I see the problem from the other side, the speaking and writing side. I speak the minimum I can, I sometimes spend hours without saying a word, but I have written more than 5000 posts here on ATS, something I never thought I could do.

The difference in this case is the same as in the other way, I write what I want because I am not interrupted in my writing, while when speaking I always stop when another person starts to speak.

In this way, my communication on the Internet is different from my communication in the real world, not better or worse, just different, and in cases that one way is the one to be expected (like the listening instead of reading) over the other, I can see that there may be some difficulties.

But I think that the judicial system is the one who needs to adapt.

They are woried by jury nulification. That is a jury ignoring the judges ordersand taking the information they view in the courtroom and making their own decisions on what the law is. Whats funny is that is exactly what jurieswhere originaly supposed to do. They are worried that juries would listen to the evidence in a case where a parent killed the rapist of their daughter and would get away with it without 'The Man' getting their full share of punishment! I love it when wescare the hell out of the establishment!!

Zindo

That's funny ... I've been following the judge on twitter and he hasn't posted a thing about it.

In all seriousness, I agree with what a lot of you are saying: A well-informed, open-minded jury isn't something Da Man wants to see.

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Just another example of narrow-minded old people with a prejudice against younger, smarter people.

Well, there you go! That's the beauty of old people... they die soon. So you won't have to worry about that for much longer, since that generation is on its way out! I jest, of course, in part.

I understand his point. Most kids today are too busy texting to even sit with their families at the dinner table uninterrupted. It's really quite sad. They don't use the internet for research like people between 26 - 36 do.