4 ms·

I gotta be honest, delivering a sentence over Zoom isn’t an issue for me. Amnesty International is right (IMHO) in arguing that a death sentence for a drug off

by parsimo2010 6y ago

I gotta be honest, delivering a sentence over Zoom isn’t an issue for me. Amnesty International is right (IMHO) in arguing that a death sentence for a drug offense is extreme, but let’s not pretend that the judge being in a different room somehow changes the nature of the sentence. It’s not like the judge put on a clown costume or told jokes during the sentencing. Maybe there is an argument that a trial conducted remotely loses some human emotion and makes a court more likely to find someone guilty of a crime, but the act of delivering a sentence after all that could just as easily be done via a letter in the post.

happytoexplain 6y ago
I agree with you. However: >Maybe there is an argument that a trial conducted remotely loses some human emotion This argument not only exists, it is entirely why we face a jury of our peers in person. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to avoid the more obvious problem of negative bias by hiding the defendant entirely (justice is supposed to be blind, after all).
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  While that's similar, the distinction here is that conducting a trial over Zoom doesn't hide the defendant; you can still see them. Zoom is admittedly lower fidelity, but does it actually matter? Zoom certainly degrades the experience when timing matters, such as telling a joke. But with testimony and legal arguments, timing isn't as important (as long as people aren't talking over each other). Also, with Zoom you could dedicate an portion of your screen to watching the defendant; in person you would have to move your gaze around the room, with Zoom you could see a defendant react to a witness' testimony without looking away from either of them. So the question remains whether the net effect of Zoom's differences changes the court in a positive or negative way. I don't think that you can say Zoom is bad just because hiding the defendant is bad.

happytoexplain 6y ago

I agree with you. However: >Maybe there is an argument that a trial conducted remotely loses some human emotion This argument not only exists, it is entirely why we face a jury of our peers in person. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to avoid the more obvious problem of negative bias by hiding the defendant entirely (justice is supposed to be blind, after all).

parsimo2010 6y ago
While that's similar, the distinction here is that conducting a trial over Zoom doesn't hide the defendant; you can still see them. Zoom is admittedly lower fidelity, but does it actually matter? Zoom certainly degrades the experience when timing matters, such as telling a joke. But with testimony and legal arguments, timing isn't as important (as long as people aren't talking over each other). Also, with Zoom you could dedicate an portion of your screen to watching the defendant; in person you would have to move your gaze around the room, with Zoom you could see a defendant react to a witness' testimony without looking away from either of them. So the question remains whether the net effect of Zoom's differences changes the court in a positive or negative way. I don't think that you can say Zoom is bad just because hiding the defendant is bad.