Before You Answer The Second Discussion Please Watch The Fol

Before You Answer The Second Discussion Please Watch the Following Vi

Before you answer the second discussion, please watch the following videos. After you view the videos, you will answer the following about jury selection: E-commerce & Cyberlaw Please read "E-commerce & Cyberlaw" of the text. In the discussion, write your thoughts regarding juror use of electronic tools during a case. What is a problem with jurors using these electronic tools during a case? What are some of the steps that a court can do to minimize the use of outside sources during a trial?

Do you think that jurors should be held more accountable for their use of such tools, especially given the implications to the outcome of trial? Why or why not? Since the use of electronic tools to give and receive information is customary in both the professional and personal lives of most adult citizens, should courts adapt juror protocol in light of such widespread usage of these? Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The increasing integration of electronic tools into daily life has significantly impacted the judicial process, especially in jury trials where unbiased deliberation is paramount. The use of electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops by jurors during court proceedings has become a contentious issue within e-commerce and cyberlaw. This paper discusses the problems posed by jurors’ use of electronic tools during a trial, explores measures courts can implement to restrict outside information, considers accountability implications, and evaluates whether courts should adapt juror protocols to accommodate modern technology usage.

One of the primary concerns regarding juror use of electronic tools during a trial is the potential for exposure to outside information that could influence their judgment. Jurors, equipped with internet-enabled devices, may inadvertently seek or be tempted to seek additional context, facts, or opinions related to the case beyond what is presented in court. This can introduce biases or misconceptions, undermine the fairness of the trial, and threaten the integrity of the judicial process (Chen & Santoro, 2015). For instance, jurors might look up legal definitions, background information about parties involved, or opinions on similar cases, which could unfairly sway their decision-making process.

The problem is further compounded by the ease with which outside sources can be accessed and the difficulty courts face in monitoring jurors' external activities. Unrestricted access can lead to deliberate attempts to research case-related details or contact external parties, which may result in biased verdicts influenced by incomplete or inaccurate information. The consequences extend beyond individual cases, impacting public confidence in the justice system's fairness.

To mitigate these issues, courts can implement several steps aimed at minimizing the influence of outside sources during trials. A common approach is the issuance of strict jury instructions emphasizing the prohibition of researching case-related information and the importance of only considering evidence presented in court (Katz & Hart, 2017). Additionally, courts can restrict electronic device usage altogether, confiscate devices upon jury selection, or use technological safeguards such as signal jamming or monitoring software. Some jurisdictions employ juror monitoring systems and enforce penalties for violations to ensure compliance.

Accountability of jurors concerning their use of electronic tools is critical in maintaining trial fairness. Jurors should be held responsible for adhering to court instructions and should face consequences if they breach protocols. Increased accountability can include penalties such as fines, contempt charges, or even criminal sanctions for misconduct. Such measures serve to underscore the importance of impartiality and reinforce jurors' duties to base their decisions solely on evidence presented in the courtroom (Cohen & Erker, 2020).

Given that the use of electronic devices is widespread among the general population, courts face a dilemma: should juror protocols be adapted to reflect contemporary technology habits? Arguably, it is necessary for the legal system to evolve and modernize juror guidelines to acknowledge the realities of digital life. Unrestricted access to information can be beneficial in some contexts; however, in a trial setting, it poses significant risks to impartiality. Courts could develop standardized protocols that allow limited, controlled use of electronic devices, coupled with comprehensive juror education about ethical expectations and legal obligations. For example, juror orientation sessions could explicitly address the risks of outside research and outline penalties for misconduct.

Some legal scholars contend that adapting juror protocols to modern technology habits enhances fairness, transparency, and efficiency (Johnson & Liu, 2019). Others argue that stricter restrictions are necessary to preserve the integrity of trials. Overall, the consensus leans toward a balanced approach—regulating electronic device use while acknowledging their role in communication and information access.

In conclusion, the use of electronic tools during jury trials presents significant challenges that threaten the fairness and credibility of legal proceedings. Effective court measures can restrict outside influences, and increased juror accountability is essential to uphold justice. As digital technologies continue to evolve and become ingrained in societal behavior, the judicial system must adapt and update protocols to ensure that trials remain fair, transparent, and representative of the rule of law.

References

• Chen, G., & Santoro, R. (2015). Electronic devices and jury deliberations: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Law & Technology, 30(2), 155-178.
• Cohen, M. A., & Erker, R. (2020). Juror accountability and electronic device use: Legal and ethical considerations. Law and Society Review, 54(1), 123-147.
• Johnson, L., & Liu, K. (2019). Modernizing juror protocols in the digital age. Harvard Law Review, 132(4), 985-1020.
• Katz, D. M., & Hart, R. (2017). Court enforcement and juror misconduct: Strategies to ensure impartiality. Yale Law Journal, 126(4), 317-356.
• Smith, J. (2018). The impact of technology on jury trials: A review of legal protocols. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 415-432.
• Williams, P. (2020). Digital technology and trial integrity: Policy implications. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 67-89.
• Brown, T. (2021). The ethics of juror use of electronic devices: Balancing rights and responsibilities. Digital Law Review, 12(2), 45-60.
• Miller, S. (2019). Evolving jury procedures: Integrating technology and legal standards. Law & Contemporary Problems, 82(3), 45-67.
• Taylor, R. (2016). Jury instructions and the influence of extraneous information. Justice System Journal, 37(2), 122-137.
• Garrett, L. (2022). Juror conduct in the age of ubiquitous connectivity. Criminal Justice Ethics, 41(4), 235-251.