Ethics and freethought  permalink

Internet courts

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 5 of 5
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by look_listen (U2362432) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Would it be a good idea to have courts hosted on the internet rather than people having to go to a court house to be on the jury for medium offenses.

    IE up to 12months prison max and the courts send out special codes for people to be the jury using their pc to pass judgment.

    of course there would need to be a bigger jury using the internet, but the same rules could apply and those judged would have just as much chance.

    Let me explain a little, suppose you commited an offence that carried a maximum of 12months prison with or without a fine.

    The selction system would pick say up to 200 internet jurers which would each be paid a small fee ie £20 to £50 pounds per week to sit on the internet jury.

    They could have a maximum of say 2 cases per week with a maximum of 2 weeks sitting which would be a total of 4 cases in two weeks, of course if it runs over they get paid the higher rate of the 20 to 50 pounds dependant on how much time it runs over by.

    Now not only would the acused get a wider ordience to pitch their case to but there would be a greater chance for the right decision being made, and instead of it being 100% voting yes or no it would need to have a percentage level that could be considered aceptable as to whether the person is considered innocent or guilty.

    So let's say 70% out of the 200 hundred people voted that you were guilty then off to jail you go, on the other hand if 70% voted no then you go free.

    To keep it secure each individual jurer would be sent out a special code that is checked and warnings given out as to fines and so on blah blah.

    But if it is considered safe enough to do our banking and our tax and buying and selling and so on on the net surely a system could be set up to make it better and less traumatic for the acused and jury dealing with medium level cases of crime.

    After all the govt are looking for ways to lower the cost of criminal justice and this would surely offer a solution wouldn't it?

    Also the internet jury would be able to read over and take a long hard look at the evidence presented rather than simply only getting a snatch look as is often the case, and in the comfort of their own home or business or internet shop, with some special provisions made for that obviously.

    Where are the down sides to this?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Major Higgs-Boson (U225196) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Where are the down sides to this? 

    Juries composed of skivers,obsessives,trolls,facebook sheep and congenital pedants.

    No, can't see a downside there.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Gong (U10912613) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    what are the downsides ?

    can't see any at all LOLOLOL

    apart from the whole idea in the first place that is !

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by dc1965 (U14174796) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Also the internet jury would be able to read over and take a long hard look at the evidence presented rather than simply only getting a snatch look as is often the case, and in the comfort of their own home or business or internet shop, with some special provisions made for that obviously.

    Possibly in the company of a few of the defendents mates armed with baseball bats!!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by look_listen (U2362432) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    Well the idea is simply that at the moment a jury is put out to simply pass judgment on someone often the people on these juries actually lose money and of course time they will never get back.

    The whole idea is that in some cases to save money and time simply have the accused questioned and put the video of the whole thing on the net in a special place for only net jurers to see.

    The only people that would know who the jurers were would be the courts as per usual, the information would be provided either as text or video and at the end you could pass backwards and forwards examining what the defendant said and the evidence against them.

    Then when your done pass your judgement either guilty or not.

    At the moment jurers don't get that luxury to examing the evidence properly and thoroughly and they don't get to see the responses over and over from what went on in the court.

    By having a wider selection of jurers rather than just 12 or whatever it is you would be more likely to get the right decision based on the evidence.

    Allow jurers a special place to discuss the case online and don't allow exchanging of email addresses and such on the site, have it over seen by a court appointed govt computer expert to ensure it is a safe site.

    And no it wouldn't just be people that were internet geeks or whatever but ordinary people from all walks of life as it is supposedly now.

    The only difference would be that these people could do the court thing from their pc rather than having to waste so much of their valuable time sitting around in a court not sure even if they are actually going to get to sit on a jury.

    The court rooms are so boring they drive you to want to comit crime just to get out of there, so I don't see how some of the accused actually get a fair trial if someone has been forced to sit and wait days on end before actually doing anything.

    An internet court would save a fortune on wasted time and money and provide a fairer trial for all.

    Take note the only people not getting the right money for what they are doing tends to be the jury, who get a pittense for their time and lost money.

    Report message5

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.

The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.