Young Adults Make Bad Jurors?
by Motte Brown on 11/12/2008 at 3:29 PM
A judge in England fears that young people will make bad jurors because of how they consume information saying, "They consult and refer to [the Internet]. They are not listening." He wonders if they'll become accustom to processing information in bits, unable "to endure hours and days of sitting [and] listening." He went on:
Our system of jury trials depends on 12 good men and women and true coming to court and listening to the case. Orality is the crucial ingredient of the adversarial system.
Witnesses speak and answer questions. Counsel speak and address the jury. Judges speak and give directions....
What process aimed at finding the truth between them, and enabling a jury to decide where the truth lies, will be in place in 25 years time? What will happen to our oral tradition? Should it, will it, be forced to change?
I've noticed this breakdown in communication in my own relationships. I've begun to skim conversations like I skim information on the Internet, not really listening as I should. It seems I'm hearing more and more people (my wife) ask, "Are you listening to me?"
If you're hearing that too, you might want to power down and engage in the real world a little more. The future of our judicial system just may depend on it.
1. brx said the following at 6:54 PM on Nov 12:
I'm not so sure it's listening skills, but critical thinking skills that are faltering.
One thing really annoys me about being on the jury, supposedly responsible for helping decide guilt or innocence: I don't get to ask the questions that I think are very pertinent but neglected. I kind of think the foreman ought to be permitted to ask a number of questions of any witness after the closing arguments. Yes, I realize that can be impractical, but it might reveal more truth that's being hidden.
Grace, peace & adventure
2. .j said the following at 12:22 AM on Nov 13:
Lol of course I would read this 9 hours before I have to report for jury duty....
3. Sarah Riley said the following at 3:28 AM on Nov 13:
I read about this very thing just a few days ago. There is an unscientific listening/reading test at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7715868.stm
It takes about ten minutes and consists of listening to 3.26 minutes of testimony and answering 5 questions then reading the transcript and answering 5 more questions.
I was quite shocked I got 5/5 for listening and only 2/5 for reading (obviously I only skim-read and didn't refer back otherwise I would've got 5/5 for both). This seems to be opposite of what the article was trying to prove.
4. Matt from DC said the following at 7:37 AM on Nov 13:
I for one am excited to read the comments on this post!
5. Sarah P. said the following at 7:46 AM on Nov 13:
I found it strange to learn a year ago that solitude and quiet are considered spiritual disciplines. But it makes sense, since I for one tend to get busy, busy, busy!
I noticed in college that when I spent more time in prayer, I was more articulate and thoughtful in general.
6. Cassandra said the following at 10:02 AM on Nov 13:
As an attorney working in a trial court, I completely agree with the Lord Judge. He's right. What he fails to address, however, is how the legal profession is responding so that juror hear and understand their main points. "Trial science" is a whole new way of communicating with the jury. Power point, pictures, overhead projection of 3-D objects (like the weapon used), and annimations -- essentially anything you would see on the internet or TV -- have become common place, even in my backwater court.
We have to educate jurors about the CSI effect -- essentially, forensics is not as great s CSI has portrayed it, and rarely do we have DNA, fingerprints, etc. Now, we just have to educate them in the language they understand.
7. Cassandra said the following at 10:05 AM on Nov 13:
To BRX (post no. 1):
Many states, including Nevada and Arizona, specifically allow the jury to ask questions (in writing) now. But, I've got to tell you, 90% of what juries ask are completely irrelevant to what you need to know. For those of us in the profession, we dread the questions that delve into the "soap opera" quality of the case. I've just found that juries want to know the kind of gossipy, juicy details that: (a) generally don't exist [cases are boring], (b) do exist, but have been ignored because they are so prejudicial, or (c) do exist but have no bearing on the decision.
8. Leah said the following at 5:35 PM on Nov 13:
Having been a juror on three court cases, one straight after the other, I know what it's like to sit in a courtroom for hours, listening to hours upon hours of testimony.
It can be difficult, but the challenge of "solving" the case- looking out for the giveaway clues as to whether he is guilty or not- is good for keeping your attention.
In Australia, if we have a question about the case, the juror can write it down and then the spokesperson will pass the questions on to the bailiff, who will pass it on to the judge. Over the three cases I was on, I think we only asked one or two questions, and they (unlike Cassandra suggested) were about facts that had already been brought up in the courtroom, but that we'd simply not understood properly. brx, if there is something pertinent to the case which could help decide a person's guilt or not, you can be assured that their counsel (or the prosecution) will have covered it!
In Australian (or, at least Queensland) courts, we also get transcripts of all pre-recorded evidence.
I don't think the fact we consult the internet a lot really impacts on our ability to listen. There are still many professions that require the ability to listen and absorb information that way, and any university graduate should have had plenty of practice at that. (Lectures, anyone?)
I noticed that, in the three juries on which I served, whenever I observed my fellow jurors, none of them seemed at all zoned out (and there were usually at least 2 others in the under-30 age bracket) and everyone seemed very tuned in to what was being said. Back in the jury room, everyone could give direct quotes from the counsel and witnesses to support their opinion on the case.
Maybe we just had a good pool of jurors to select from? But I never observed any lack of listening.
9. Calvin said the following at 5:49 PM on Nov 13:
To: Cassandra #7.
I recently spent six weeks on a jury in a civil trial. Fortunately, the jury was encouraged to ask written questions. We were able to bring out information that was germane to the case that had been withheld as being too prejudicial. It was prejudicial, but only in that the information explained a significant portion of the evidence otherwise presented and clearly aided us in determining the truth of what had happened.
Did we ask some questions that were unhelpful? Doubtless. But the one question that we did ask that was helpful, made the entire case very easy to decide for us.
10. BDB said the following at 7:00 PM on Nov 13:
I do think that young jurors could be afflicted if they can't listen to their iPod constantly and are forced to interact with people in person. They might need dramamine or something to cope...
I never get picked, though. I tend to argue with the attorneys during jury selection when they aren't precise enough. "When you refer to the McDonald's coffee case, was the restaurant in question a private franchise or a company-owned store?"
11. smk said the following at 4:45 PM on Nov 14:
i am 21 and i was on a jury last week. the trial was actually very serious and very emotional. i spent 4 hours sitting for jury selection and 13 hours for the trial and deliberations the next day.
first off, you actually can ask questions of witnesses. you just have to write them down and have them passed to the judge. then the powers that be can decide if the question is fair/appropriate. i didn't know that, and thought it was a pretty cool part of the judicial process.
i won't lie...it was hard to be apart from my cell phone for those 13 hours, but i made it through. i'm not so sure we young people are as hopeless as some might think...i would guess that the other 21 year old i served on the jury with will agree. he and i were both very involved in the deliberations that ensued.
12. Mike Theemling said the following at 6:11 AM on Nov 16:
I've often been puzzled at the jury system of justice.
Think about it. We take a handful of laymen who often aren't experts the field of law or criminology, throw a bunch of facts at them which often aren't entirely bias-free (because we have an adversarial system), and expect them to come up with a correct decision based upon it.
Heck, even the process of selecting a jury at times seems suspect. Sometimes lawyers want people who think less critically and more emotionally.
But I suppose this is one of those examples of "the wisdom of the group exceeds the wisdom of the individuals" and that it isn't a perfect system but still "it works".
I too have heard about the CSI effect and judges have to sometimes explicitly tell jurors that what they perceive about forensic evidence often doesn't reflect reality.
The shortened attention span is a concern though.
13. Leah said the following at 10:25 PM on Nov 17:
Mike Theemling - jury members are specifically not supposed to know anything about law or criminology. In Australia (at least in my state, Queensland) those who DO; policemen, lawyers, law students, and military; are prohibited from serving on juries. This is because it is not the jury's role to decide the definition of the law, it is simply their decision to decide if the person committed the act that the judge specifies.
For example, say Bob was being accused of murder. The jury has to decide if it was actually Bob who shot Bill, not whether shooting Bill is classed as "murder" as opposed to "manslaughter" or something different. It's up to the judge to interpret the law.
14. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:16 AM on Nov 19:
Leah,
We have similar prohibitions against being on a jury here. If you are a lawyer, policeman, etc. by trade you almost certainly won't make the cut.
However, there are times when a jury does have to decide whether an act was murder or manslaughter (at least in this country. Maybe in Australia it's different). Sometimes they are given options and they do have decide not just "did Bob shoot Bill?" but "What was the intent of Bob shooting Bill?".