Will LulzSec Target the UK Legal System Over Jailing of Joanne Fraill?
LulzSec are a group of hackers, who have broken into various computer systems all over the world, including a web site linked with the CIA.
I do wonder whether the jailing of Joanne Fraill for discussing a case where she was a juror on Facebook, will get a response from LulzSec. Especially, as some reports say all jurors who use Facebook to discuss cases will be jailed.
How long before the idiots on Facebook start a “Free joanne Fraill” campaign?
I can’t help feeling, that this one will run and run and in a direction that the government and the judges won’t like.
What Joanne Fraill did was wrong, but then it was also incredibly stupid. So are we now jailing people for doing things, they don’t have the intelligence to realise are wrong? In Joanne Fraill’s case, she should have been given a community sentence. Perhaps one working with the victims and problems of drug addiction, that her actions have inadvertently made worse, by stopping a trial of drug dealers.
The Anonymous Widower 
So, a juror gets sent down for eight months for merely exercising her basic human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Mrs Fraill didn’t ask or volunteer to sit on that jury, so why should she be compelled to take any notice of what the judge says, or stick to the terms of an oath she made under duress?
There is no way I’ll be sitting on a jury. In my case I’ll probably be excused because I’ve got Asperger’s syndrome; even if this wasn’t the case I’d just refuse, and if the authorities insisted, I would just be disruptive in court…and then violent and disruptive in jail
Comment by Lee | June 17, 2011 |
I sympathise with your views. And some of my legal friends might agree. Some countries have done away with the jury system because it often gives perverse judgements. As it does sometimes in the UK.
But what you replace it with, I do not know!
Comment by AnonW | June 17, 2011 |
I did jury service many years ago, and on the whole enjoyed it. However, I was shocked at the attitude of some jurors, including one who changed her mind about the verdict to speed things up so she could go to M&S before they closed.
I went into the ladies loos one day and there was a young woman who was only 18 crying her eyes out, sat on the floor. I asked if she was okay, and she sobbed that she couldnt tell anyone about the case she was on. I said if she wanted to talk about it, I would listen and not comment, I was on a different case. Poor girl was on a violent child sexual abuse case. She was devastated because she really didnt know such things went on as the things she was hearing about, and she was completely traumatised by it all. I felt so sorry for her. I doubt there was any support for her after the trial either, to deal with what she had scene and hears. I do think it is right to keep trial by jury, but I also think that something needs to be done to support distressed jurors
Comment by liz | June 17, 2011 |