Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:13 pm
Time: 12:13 pm
Results for mass media and criminal justice
2 results foundAuthor: Beals, Fiona Title: Crime Families in the News: Exploring Media Reports of Young Offenders and Their Families Summary: This study examines the ways in which the families of young offenders were represented in New Zealand print media between 2002 and 2007. It comprises a literature review of studies on the representation of families in news media, a content analysis of published newspaper articles and a qualitative exploration on the types of constructions used in newspaper articles. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Families Commission, Blue Skies Fund, 2010. 37p. Source: Internet Resource; Blue Skies Report No. 33/10 Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: Shelf Number: 119288 Keywords: Crime and the PressCrime in Mass MediaJuvenile OffendersMass Media and Criminal Justice |
Author: Hannaford-Agor, Paula Title: Juror and Jury Use of New Media: A Baseline Exploration Summary: Over the course of six meetings held between 2008 and 2011, the members of the Executive Session for State Court Leaders in the 21st Century considered leadership challenges presented by a series of both longstanding problems and new trends. The new social media’s turn came in April 2010 with a discussion billed as examining “the opportunities and pitfalls of new media for state court leaders.” The youngest Session member, Garrett Graff, an expert on the new media, agreed to frame the issues for everyone’s benefit. He immediately took the discussion to an unexpected place. The real challenge, he claimed, is that “this is much more than just a set of tools—this is a different way of thinking.” That is not to say that the tools themselves are unproblematic. Graff noted that one consequence of the new media is that “every single person who is now sitting in a courtroom has access to just about every piece of information ever published anywhere in the world. And that is a tremendous challenge to the way we traditionally think of sealing off the courtroom from the outside world for the duration of a trial.” Currently, jury and juror use of the Internet to conduct independent research or to engage in ex parte communications on trial-related topics is universally prohibited as a violation of the juror’s oath and can result in a mistrial or an overturned verdict. The more profound challenge, however, is the change to the very nature of how people engage in truth finding. The Kennedy School’s Christopher E. Stone summarized the challenge as a “dilemma for an institution that is used to insisting on its own ways of knowing things, ways that are different from what ordinary people do. Consider the rules of evidence—or just the rules on hearsay—we have an institution that is used to telling the whole society, ‘Yeah, yeah, you think you learn things this way, but we have different rules for acquiring knowledge in this process.’” The jury trial clearly is where new ways of truth seeking are most likely to collide with the requirements of traditional court processes. The potential casualty is fairness. Chief Justice Christine M. Durham of the Utah Supreme Court expressed skepticism about the ability of courts to find a compromise that accommodates new understandings of truth finding with the traditional trial process: “Where I have trouble is with what becomes of the fundamental definition of fairness in the American judicial system—which is founded on the concept of the adversarial system as the means of guaranteeing fairness. We have inextricably connected those two values, fairness and the adversary system, from the beginning of our history.” If judges are no longer the gatekeepers for the flow of information into a courtroom, and if jurors no longer accept the legitimacy of restrictions on what is relevant to fact finding, can the American adversarial system continue to deliver fairness? The subsequent discussion led to a broad consensus that the Executive Session should, as part of its legacy, sponsor one or more jury experiments to inform court leaders as they confront changing technology and approaches to truth finding. More specifically, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), with its tradition of jury research, was asked to design a research project to explore the impact of the new media on juries, develop the necessary survey and other methodologies needed to explore the impact of the new media on juries, and recommend potential ways to reconcile the use of new media with the dynamics of the adversarial system. This paper frames the research issues and describes what was learned from the pilot test of a jury study in 15 civil and criminal trials. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 17, 2012 at http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Court-leadership/Harvard-Executive-Session/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Harvard%20Executive%20Session/jurorandjuryuse.ashx Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Court-leadership/Harvard-Executive-Session/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Harvard%20Executive%20Session/jurorandjuryuse.ashx Shelf Number: 127230 Keywords: CommunicationsInformation TechnologyJuriesJurorsMass Media and Criminal Justice |