Module Procedure Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Module Procedure - Essay Example It is also contempt of court for a jury member to ask for opinions and views on case from a person who is not part of the jury. However, in order to determine the facts and background information of the case in question, some jurors have gone ahead and fetched information from the internet. It is highly unlikely that the information available on the internet is reliable.1 A good percentage of the information on the internet is either exaggerated or false. Hardly do you find substantial facts on a case on the internet and it is illegal to use it for legal reasons. Basically it is the obligation of jurors to base their verdict only on the facts presented at the courtroom and not outside. It is also against the rules of a just deliberation to use the internet as a source of information to back up a case. Jury deliberation is where the jury, after a court proceeding thoughtfully, exits the courtroom to the deliberation room, listens and considers both sides of a case or a trial in order to reach a just verdict. Here, they share and exchange elements of a case that has just been presented before them with utmost fairness, analyze them and settle on a common decision. Usually, the deliberation is facilitated by a fair, strong opinionated juror.2 Basically, this is where the jury spits out their interpretation or understanding of t he case, collectively analyze and test each other’s points without biasness or bullying in order to come up with a reasonable common verdict, usually within law. The deliberation usually set the basis for any judgment that will be passed. The jury is usually not allowed to hold any external consultation to come up with a verdict. The advancement in technology and easy access to the internet has enabled jurors to obtain information on cases and parties involved with ease. Internet research by jurors is not allowed in criminal and civil trials because it has been described as a cause of the increasing cases of mistrials in the modern l aw courts. 3Judges have a responsibility of instructing jurors to avoid doing internet search on the case at hand. Despite the instructions from judges, many jurors have not refrained from using the internet in getting extra information about a case in which they are involved or the people who are involved in the case. It is also important to note that jurors are instructed to refrain from sharing case information with the public but among themselves. However, the access to social networking and electronic media has caused jurors to share with other people about cases and as a result they obtain questionable information about the case which plays a role in their perceptions about those who are being tried. The restriction that the jurors are given in the access of the internet is however limited to that period when deliberations on the case has began. The misuse of the internet by jurors has become a serious problem within the justice system.4This is illustrated by the easy with whi ch jurors can access obscure information on the individuals involved in cases through blogging or accessing information on Facebook or Twitter. These sites do not offer credible information because online community would post malicious or exaggerated information about individuals involved in case proceedings and thus make jurors to have a biased perception about a case. It has been revealed that jurors fall into the temptation of web search and which