Digital technologies affect every single aspect of modern life. Smartphones are outnumbering traditional cell phones dashingly, social networks have become a fundamental pillar of communication, and the total amount of data all over the world is measured in hundreds of exabytes. It is quite obvious that digital revolution has influenced the judiciary system as well. Although modern technologies are able to make the court work more flexible, transparent, efficient and eventually more equitable, it is still human, who passes laws and renders a verdict.
While legal practice becomes more advanced, the courts fall under the pressure of the progress as well. One of the primary aspects of modern court’s work is to make them transparent in order to build public trust. Computerized case management systems (CMS) were introduced in early 00s and allowed access to the cases to the council, media and general public (Slowes, 2003). The progress does not stand still, and video storages in courts’ databases are now as necessary as text ones.
In Sweden, for instance, “More modern court proceedings” reform was introduced. It included wide use of video records such as documenting examination by video, just as previously they were stored in audio. It allowed the court to study both sound and image and release the witnesses from having to come to court more than one time. Furthermore, under certain conditions it became possible to participate in court session through videoconference. It is not the general rule, but nevertheless the technology can be used if there is not enough room in the courtroom, or if the witness lives far from it (Government Offices of Sweden, Ministry of Justice, 2009).
The most widely known usage of social networks in legal practice is probably searching for evidence in them (Knibs, 2013). While a phone company is only able to provide a call and message logs, responding to a government subpoena or search warrant, social media corporations are glad to share the user’s profile with all his photos, list of friends and in the case of certain networks, location information. All of the above can provide the police and subsequently, the court with the comprehensive amount of evidence (Murphy, 2012). For instance, Anthony Elonis of Pennsylvania was sentenced to 44 months in prison, as he was found guilty on account of posting threatening rap lyrics on his Facebook profile (Arit, 2014).
It is not only the suspects who may regret their posts or tweets. “The legal profession is no stranger to social media” (St. Eve & Zuckerman, 2012, p.11) as well. Lawyers can discover information about potential jurors, opposing counsel and even the judge, while journalists are frequently using Twitter for the live broadcast from the courtroom.
Despite the possible benefits to the court work, social media were wrecking havoc there since they become widespread. Their usage increased the risk of prejudicial communication amongst the jurors exponentially. One of the brightest examples of such misuse is a case of tweeting juror from Arkansas, who hinted about the death sentence in one of his tweets. The jury returned a verdict of guilty while the trial court has denied the motion for another trial (St. Eve & Zuckerman, 2012).
In my opinion, the problem of certain misuses is not in the modern technologies, but in legal workers, who should be strictly prohibited of tweeting and posting about their jobs. Still, courts, just as any other official institutions should be represented in social media. Regarding the digital technologies, in general, they can either help to protect human rights or be instrumental in oppressing them. The impartial digital judge is still up to be invented.
References
Arit, J. (2014). The 8 Most Important Cases in the New Supreme Court Term. Bloomberg. Web.
Government Offices of Sweden, Ministry of Justice. (2008). More modern court proceedings. Web.
Knibs, K. (2013). In the Online Hunt For Criminals, Social Media is The Ultimate Snitch. Digital Trends. Web.
Murphy, J. (2012). Social Media Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: An Uncertain Frontier. Web.
Slowes, R. (2003). Benefits of a Modern Court Case Management System. Web.
St. Eve, Amy J., Zuckerman Michael A. (2012). Ensuring an Impartial Jury in the Age of Social Media. Duke Law & Technology Review, 11 (2012) 2-29.