Mistrial by Facebook?

[barbarienne]

I've long thought that "jury of one's peers" too often turns into "jury of idiots." The system generally works, but it is extremely imperfect.

Some people think that "professional jurors"--people who are trained to be neutral and to evaluate only the evidence put before them--might be the solution. If situations such as this continue, there may be

Comments

[mishaslair]

I find it disturbing that these people are so lackadaisical about their civic responsibility. People have come to believe they know better than doctors, judges, etc. because they can look something up on google. They confuse availability of information with expertise, and I find that unsettling.

[barbarienne]

In fairness, I think some of that perception comes because the supposed experts are so often wrong. Or...are perceived as being often wrong, because when one is wrong, it's made loud and public, ignoring the thousands who are generally right.

That said, I think doctors in particular are subject to this problem because so many of them have massive socialization problems (not House-level, but definitely they have issues). They are so used to dealing with idiot patients that they talk down to the intelligent, engaged ones. They also have a very hard time uttering the words "I don't know" (probably because that opens them to a law suit). I'm sure a lot of it stems from the pressures of evil health insurance companies, but I do think doctors should be required to take multiple courses in "bedside manner" and "Patience with Patients."

[lyonessnyc]

I find that I don't like the idea that the attorneys can check my blog or website. I keep my LJ more or less anonymous -- my friends know who I am, but will future questionaires require us to divulge the existence of an LJ?

I wouldn't break the rules they're mentioning, and am astonished that people would be so idiotic as to Twitter about courtroom information. Just wow.