A Note to the Amero Case Juror
If you've been following along, you probably know about the Julie Amero porn trial. (However, if you've been living in a terrarium and missed my blogs, you can read them here.)
I have a few more things I want you to hear (and yes, I know this is a mighty long blog).
My Apology to the Juror
Last week I talked about a message I received from a juror. (Read the blog here.)
In that blog, I used the juror's partial e-mail address, essentially, his screen name. The juror insisted it was fine to do and foolishly, I agreed. And it's a mistake I won't make again. That's because it was a pretty easy task to track down his real identity. People have been more than rude to him. The guy's been berated by strangers, teased about personal issues, and God only knows what else. He shouldn't have to be subjected to this harassment.
I don't agree with the juror's decision. In my mind, Julie Amero is innocent. But I'm distressed at how many people don't get it: Right or wrong, this is how our judicial system works. The guy listened to the testimony -- which may have been egregiously incorrect -- and did his best to follow the judge's instructions. (I've examined and found the guideline surprisingly complicated. More on that in a sec.). He cannot do anything to change the conviction.
Either way, I owe the juror an apology for exposing him to the uncivil and contemptuous e-mails he’s received.
Instructions to The Jury
One more item about the juror's decision and then I'll stop badgering you about the Amero case.
I thought about what it'd be like to serve on a jury that forced me to make a decision about something I know little about, say, house painting, or knitting, based on a set of guidelines and what I heard at a trial.
So I got hold of the "instruction to the jury" part of the transcript. At 4000 words, it's tough reading (unless you're an attorney or judge, and they probably love the stuff); I'm going to show you only a small portion of it. I removed some of the verbiage; the highlights in bold are mine.
(2/27/07 Update: The transcripts are available online in PDF format.
To find the defendant guilty of wilfully or unlawfully causing or permitting any child under sixteen to be placed in a situation in which their morals are likely to be impaired, the State must have proven the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:One, that at the time of the incident the children in question were under sixteen years old.
Two, Ms. Amero wilfully or unlawfully caused or permitted the victims to be placed in a situation that was likely to impair their morals. This is the conduct that is deliberately indifferent to, acquiesces in, or creates a situation that is basically opposite to the child’s moral welfare, inimical, or basically opposite to the children’s moral welfare.
Willful means deliberately or intentionally. Unlawfully means without legal right or justification; causing or permitting a situation to arise when the defendant, Ms. Amero, had such control or right of control over the children that the defendant could have prevented from happening.
As for intent, the state must have proven the defendant had the general intent to perform these acts, in other words, her behavior, if you find that she did, in fact, access these websites commonly referred to as pornographic, or that the pornographic websites were being accessed and the defendant was indifferent to, acquiesced in or created a situation that would be indifferent to or opposite to the children’s moral welfare, and that the children were under sixteen years old were exposed to these websites, that would be general intent.
The Jurors Were Stuck
From the reading of the instructions, it seems clear to me that there are two things the jurors needed to vote on: 1) If Amero intentionally accessed porn sites and, 2) If she didn't do anything to prevent the children from seeing it. It's confusing to me, but it sounds as if she did either one, and remembering the jurors were stuck with the guidelines above, they had no choice but to vote guilty.
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D., from the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, has another take on it:
"Amero did what she though was appropriate to protect the students in her classroom, given her understanding that she was not to turn the computer off or close the classroom door (it is common safety practice to require that doors remain open). Based on a review of the reports from the students, what she did was successful.""Of the 60 students who could have seen pornographic material, only 10 reported that they did. Of these, eight reported seeing only mild erotica. The other two reported they saw "little pictures" that depicted some sexual activity. It appears that seven of the ten tried to look at the computer after being told by another student of the concern. None of the students reported any emotional upset or distress whatsoever."
"Given the recent research study finding that 42% of young people between the ages of 10 and 17 have viewed online pornography, consider the implications if the police and prosecutors around the country now think that any parent or teacher who fails to take the steps that others think necessary to prevent this from occurring? Do we have sufficient prison space and foster care resources?"
Willard's posted an excellent report on Amero's dilemma. You can read the "Julie Amero Tragedy" here.
What do You Think?
What I've learned from the Amero case is that if you're a teacher, always carry around a large, black trash bag, just in case you need to quickly cover a monitor. Who knows, it may keep you out of jail.
I'm guessing you have a thought, or maybe you're an attorney with an expert opinion. Either way, there's plenty of room in the Comments field below.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
It's nice of you to apologize to the juror, but his name had already been published along with that comment in the Norwich Bulletin, so it wasn't entirely your fault.
I don't buy the argument that the jury instructions were so obtuse and difficult that the jurors couldn't find a way through to a not guilty verdict either, based on his comment, which essentially said "Hey, she's an idiot and shouldn't be teaching kids, so hang her high!".
This case turned on one issue: The inability of the defense to introduce evidence of malware. Had they been able to do that, there would have been no intent proven. Reading through Nancy Willard's report gives you a clear vision of how twisted the logic of the DA was to bring charges at all, and how evil it was for the principal and IT admin to omit key information to save their sorry butts.
If you're going to serve on a jury be prepared to have a reasonable explanation for sending an innocent person to prison and to be accountable for it.
I buy any argument that juror instructions are so difficult that jurors can't find the light of day, because I've been there and done that. And my final argument was and will always remain, "if it's so damn black and white, what do they need with 12 innocent individuals?!?"
The only thing blind about justice is the layman trying to interpret it. So my vow, if I ever get on a jury again is, they get what I give them or they can decipher their own pounds of paperwork and not waste my time.
If you're going to serve on a jury, bring along your brain and your mouth and use them both.
As a tech, I firmly believe that 90% of all computer users don't know what the hell they're doing. Half the population could be convicted of some crime, if their hard drives were suddenly seized, and scrutinized.
Everything you see on the internet is on your hard drive, whether you intended to see it or not. Now imagine that some person has written some software that automatically takes you to a location on the internet that you don't want to see! That material is now on your hard drive- and unless you know what you're doing, you're now CONVICTED.
I'm willing to bet that more than 50% of internet users in the USA now have material on their hard drives that can be used as evidence against them.
Are we thrust back into 1951? Are we on a witch hunt? YES. PEOPLE NEED EDUCATION. I'm mad as hell.