 |
| O.J. Simpson, found not guilty in a criminal trial, different jury system than Grand Jury |
Just click on the blue link. Only takes a moment no registration required. Once you are on the page for (page name) just scroll down to (performer's name) click the circle next to (performers name) then click vote....so easy. Thank you for your support!!! All the best." This is an example of what we find in music, that we find with news as well; but does this produce quality entertainment and honest, relevant information or create critical problems, especially in the case of criminal proceedings?
Social media is said to create mobs, bring attention to important issues and establish popularity for some young talent. On the other hand, the vote process that is in operation for news and feature articles in magazines and newspapers, musical performances on the Internet and the news of the day means that the top vote-getting material may not always be representative of the best of talent or the truth in a given story or idea.
With the first example, a message often received by fellow entertainers or friends of a given performer, offers specific instructions to help provide sufficient votes to be declared "artist of the month." We are told that if we vote for said performer, that performer, in turn, will vote for one of our postings as well. If the message goes unsaid, it is often an understanding, however, on sites driven by social media. That understanding underlines the problem created by these messages. The shy violinist with great talent finds his or her material buried in the avalanche of votes given someone who receives the most from sheer volume of people on the social exchange. The message is not that the vote underlines a special talent but simply tenure on a site or level of popularity from various social media groups that feed it.
Most people understand that social media can create a high profile case or information. It can also instill fear, help enlist membership in hate groups and foment Internet bullying---sometimes of the innocent or about those where some of the facts may be unknown or kept private for a reason. Grand jury proceedings are some of those instances where certain details are not given to the public because of the nature of the process.
In the recent cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in New York, two separate grand juries failed to indict police officers in the deaths of both victims. Brown was shot in an encounter with a police officer and Eric Garner was shown in a video thrown to the ground by several police officers,while crying for help and stating he was unable to breathe. Both cases were outlined on television by news reporters and legal experts as having unique features. Yet the outcome of violence and protest comes after social media has spread information that becomes muddled in the mix of emotions as opposed to knowledge of relevant material that juries have when assessing whether or not to indict someone for a crime.
The United States is one of the only countries that uses the grand jury process, which is a jury set up to decide whether or not there is enough relevant evidence "there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by a criminal suspect." And only about half the states use grand juries. The trend is to use an adversarial legal process where a judge makes the decision to indict based upon the facts and details presented by opposing sides. The process was designed to screen out the malicious or wrongful prosecution, as in the early days of the United States citizens could use the process to bring up minor problems that did not merit moving forward with a trial. The facts and details were kept secret in order to maintain the integrity of the process so that the information could be presented with a limited amount of emotional involvement or anxiety about community response.
In both the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases community response has been shown to have turned violent with protests involving large groups across a large swath of the country. Would those protests have been less violent, or even non-existent, if a judge had made the decision about whether or not to indict the police officers in these cases?
In high profile criminal cases, where material facts have been offered to the public in ongoing news presentations, or even filming of some of the trial proceedings as occurred in the O.J.Simpson trial, where he had been accused of killing his wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in a particularly horrific manner. This case stimulated a high degree of emotion throughout, with African American and white responses shown to be somewhat different both during the trial and following the verdict. But there was not the violent response to that outcome when Simpson was found innocent of killing his wife, despite the numerous details offered to the court that appeared to point to his guilt.
The jury system has been shown to have flaws or thought to be outmoded when there are particularly prominent cases where the public can vote in its own way through social media. On the other hand, is America ready with enough confidence in judge's authority to do away with the jury process itself?What are the virtues and failings of either process, judge or jury or both?
Instead people are asked to decide on television, in comments following news articles, and in social gatherings whether or not they agree with the outcome of a case, whether it is a criminal trial or a grand jury determining whether or not to indict and proceed toward a criminal trial.
The questions of history and style, of evaluating the successes and failures of judges and juries and combinations of either, are important in terms of social and political outcomes, as critical legal cases are often used to demonstrate either what is right or what is wrong in a case where strong feelings are expressed.
Citizens are said to deserve the truth and information that will allow them to protect themselves and others. This is likely to come not from social media casting its vote, that often makes it difficult for the best talent to be selected, but finding the answers to the processes of determination and how, or even whether, those processes can be changed to address the issues.
