h a l f b a k e r y
What was the question again?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
apparently a top judge (UK) has expressed his concern that this generation's jurors, brought up learning and playing on the internet, are not sufficiently able to concentrate on the spoken word (evidence) for long enough to provide a fair trial for the prisoner in the dock.
provide jurors with monitors
and allow them to game their way through the crime - choosing to play either the villain or the victim, the policeman or superhero (o.k. perhaps not) or a witness.
real and expert witnesses can join the game to show how the crime unfolded or to explain forensic evidence and the suspect too can join in to prove his alibi or disprove the motivation or even graphically confess in the hope of a shorter sentence.
well, I think you get the picture!
can you listen as well as read?
[po, Nov 07 2008]
||[+] for adding clarity, despite misgivings about catering to idiots.
||Um, Po, this is lawyers. You are inventing lawyers. And a judge criticising the jury for not engaging needs to raise her/his game somewhat.
||Nice, a judge in trouble for being morally on point but not technically competent. Sort of walk in the shoes of lawyers without any knowledge and see what happens. How can criminals and lawyers not learn?