Trial by Google

An article from the Guardian reports that Mr Grieve, a UK attorney general, has warned people against the risks of what he calls 'trial by google.' This is to signify that there are risks for the integrity of the British judicial system that are associated with an improper use of the Internet. In particular, these risks relate to social media and search engines. Moreover, the so-called trial by google "offends the principle of open justice," according to Mr Grieve. He points at cases where jurors can turn into criminals, committing offenses via the Internet, and using anonymity to mask themselves.

Here is something from Mr Grieve's public speech at the University of Kent (Feb 6, 2013), as reported by Owen Bowcott from the Guardian:

[a] What does the internet mean for our system of trial by jury? Is the trial process equipped, or even able, to regulate the information that jurors receive? How can we be sure that jurors decide their cases on the basis of the evidence they hear – and not what they looked up on their smart phones on the bus on the way to court?"
[b] Grieve continued: "The internet is a haystack of material, scattered with the odd prejudicial needle, as it were. Trial by Google allows a juror to locate the haystack, find the needle, pull it out and ascribe significance to it that it simply would never have had otherwise. It takes a minor risk and turns it into a major risk." --- letters [a] and [b] added by DS

There are quite a few points that can be taken as a basis for meaningful discussion here. Obviously, the risks and dangers are there and there is little to argue about that, especially in the face of criminal offenses. However, how significant are these risks after all? Do they constitute an actual and present danger to the legal system in the UK (or to any other legal system)? What is Mr Grieve so scared of? The point here is that ignorance explains most of the talk. To make a long story short, I touch on two points only.

It is 2013. The Internet has been around for the public to use for about twenty years now. Everybody knows how to use it and what it means for our lives. It is, more or less, a fact of everyday life. What paragraph [a] implies is that we should not treat information coming from the Internet as part of our lives when involved in a judicial trial. For understandable reasons, the information coming from online sources is supposedly less accurate, less reliable, and uncontrolled, as compared to evidence that "jurors… hear." The message for jurors is clear: "Beware of the Internet!" The idea behind this is that (a) jurors need to base their judgement on evidence, (b) this evidence has to be produced in the trial, and (c) the judgement needs to be rational hence, (d) every disturbance on that rationality is to be avoided. If these four subsequent points hold true, then letter (d) in particular needs careful examination.  Is the Internet the only disturbance of jurors' clarity of mind? Well, probably not. What about other elements such as emotionality, prejudices, what they hear on TV, radio, what they read on newspapers, books, and public debates? Why should these sources be discounted on the face of the Internet? Why is Internet only defined as a danger, risks and it is the one that "offends the principle of open justice?" What is not rational here is picking up on online sources, as if this is the only distraction jurors have "on the way to the court." Where is the evidence that online sources are more dangerous that the sources of information I listed above? I declare my own ignorance here as I am not aware of any study that highlights the Internet impairs rational decisions and judgement more than other sources.

The second point I would like to highlight concerns criminal acts (it is not necessarily linked to point [b] in the quotation above). Of course, when someone involved in a trial commits a crime using social media on the Internet then it should face the legal charges associated with it. What I have a hard time understanding is why should this be different from any other crime that is committed when a juror is not online. Why should we emphasize the crimes that are associated with, for example, anonymous posts on blogs that attempt at disqualifying the prosecutors (a case mentioned in the full article). The bottom line here is that a crime is a crime. It should not matter whether it takes place on a virtual environment or in real life. Again, this way to highlight that online sources should be treated with more emphasis or differently than anything else has little to do with a clear understanding of how our everyday life is shaped by online activities.

I have publicly declared my ignorance on (behavioral or legal) studies on these particular issues. This ignorance can also be extended to Mr Grieve, since he ignores key elements of how people's judgement is usually formed and how the Internet is now part of our cognition and rational decision making. There is more. Online sources may, in some cases, extend people's ability to think, be rational, and make moral judgement. The simple activity of manipulating information, using interactive tools (such as comments on a blog or a chat line or an email, or else) to create a cognitive process that embeds this information retrieved on the Internet do help our judgement more than limit it. Again, the point that Mr Grieve is trying to send across seems to be that (a) information retrieved on the Internet weights more than other information, and (b) that it impairs people's judgement. My point is that none of these assertions are based on scientific evidence and they should be discarded.

They are useful to ask some questions, though. Can online sources provide a good and sound basis to strengthen, change, improve one's ethical judgments? How? Bring in your own experiences with a comment to this post. Thank you.