The recent events in Florida with the Trayvon Martin case had me pondering the justice system in America.
I have heard it said, and I concur with this assessment, that without the social media intervention the case would have been swept under the carpet.
Assuming that to be true, and assuming that the state of Florida decides to prosecute Mr. Zimmerman, how hard would it be for the state to find an impartial jury?
There are people are already calling for his head. Other’s are vehemently denying he was doing anything other than defending himself from a young hoodlum. Either way, they’ve already decided his guilt or innocence without a trial.
Will social media eventually make it impossible to find an impartial jury without modifying the standards of impartiality?
What happens if the state cannot find twelve people who haven’t already made up their mind on the case? Do they trust the twelve people who say, “Well, I believe it was murder, but I’ll keep my mind open that it might have been self-defense?”
I don’t think social media is relevant here. It’s simply a well publicized case. This happened long before social media, in the regular media. If anything, the Internet has made it easier to get access to additional sources of information or perspectives rather than just blindly accept the first spin you encounter.
Let’s get real, this would have been a newsworthy story without social media. There is no way that the media would ignore a story about race and self defense laws.
But to the larger point, an impartial jury does not mean an uninformed jury. There are a large number of issues in the news that I have read about that, if they went to trial, I would have no moral or ethical problems with serving as a juror. I would listen to the evidence, weigh the credibility of witnesses, and make up my own mind, even though I’ve listened to news coverage or maybe even commentary on the issue. There’s also a small number of issues that I don’t think I would be a good juror for.
But I don’t think social media has one whit of bearing on what issues I think I can remain impartial on: that is because social media is primarily the phenomenon of making uninformed, half-baked opinions easily accessible to people with computers or iPhones. Why anyone would take a Facebook post or a tweet more seriously than glurge in one’s email is beyond me.
Despite the internet and social media, there are still people out there who are uninformed - my daughter being one. She’s perfectly happy being oblivious to life in the world outside her little personal sphere. I don’t know how typical she is of 20-somethings…
I completely agree. The fact that people are informed solely through social media is appalling. I understand that it is a quick way to get news, and by following the major media outlets you are able to get your news more instantly than in other forms. However, social media is a breeding ground of uneducated people with too much time on their hands. These people read a story or don’t even read and it just read someone else’s comment on a story and form an opinion.
Kony along with this new story are perfect examples of how social media can form opinions based on other peoples ill informed, badly researched opinions. It is a mess, and I hope people learn to educate themselves and stay informed or we are all in for a real treat during the upcoming elections.
It’s not appalling, it’s amazing. This **is **people trying educate themselves. Sure, some people don’t do any research beyond what their friends say on facebook. But lots of people just start with social media and read legitimate news articles after learning about something like this. 50 years ago, nobody outside the state would have known or cared about this case.
How can you argue against this? It’s better for a random person to have an awareness of the case and an imperfect understanding of the legal system than it is to be totally unaware of its existence. We can’t jump straight from total ignorance to mastery; education doesn’t work that way.