The Facebook Juror is going away for 8 months…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13792080

Seems a bit hard a sentence, she is basically an idiot but of no harm to the public, a month would have been a sufficient warning to others with the publicity surrounding her actions.

Demonstrates the Fraillty of the jury system. Defo would go for citzenship as a qualification for voting/breeding/serving on a jury etc, i.e a demonstrated ability at basic concepts like reading, writing, comprehension etc before being allowed too much freedom.

she is basically an idiot but of no harm to the public

So? she caused a £6 million trial to collapse. she deserves it. Should people that commit fraud be spared prison because “they are no harm to the public”

The two continued to talk about the case and used expressions such as “lol” and other internet slang.

LOL!

Should be imprisoned just for using lol.

Bah humbug.

Good, I think this is a fair sentence in my opinion. I think/hope she(and any prospective juror) has learned from this.

For me, I think she knew full well that what she was doing was wrong and you can’t hide behind the defence that you’re not aware the internet was off limits.

As it’s the first case of it’s kind – I would have locked her up for the full 2yrs – more to make a point, as opposed to punishing her per se.

Nobody would dare even think about this sort of thing in the future!

warton – Member

she is basically an idiot but of no harm to the public

So? she caused a £6 million trial to collapse. she deserves it. Should people that commit fraud be spared prison because “they are no harm to the public”

She didn’t commit fraud though, she didn’t set out to rob or harm anyone (as far as we are told in the news stories) she just apears to be rather stupid, somebody that should have been weeded out in the jury selection process for such a big trial.

What worries me is that Joanne Fraill was put in a position where she would have an input into someone going to prison. I blame the state.

Does this count as a Facebook Fail?

Does this count as a Facebook Fraill?

I don’t think the sentence is an accurate reflection of the individual’s character or intent. She was just unfortunate enough to be the one that gets made an example of.
SbZ speaks sense.

What if she’d looked her up in the phone book, gone round and gave her details of the trial in return for promises of “big prezzies”???

Aside from the fact that she cost the taxpayer £6million, she undermined the cornerstone of the British judicial system. IMO, 8 months is lenient.

What if she caused red hot fire to rain down from the sky above?

She was just unfortunate enough to be the one that gets made an example of.

This is true. However it doesn’t mean the sentence is unfair… Without seeing the full details of her trial it’s hard to be certain but the details that are reported suggest that she didn’t simply have a quick word, it was much more back and forward with details of what was actually going on privately in the jury discussions about the trial. If that had been done face-to-face I don’t think anyone would be questioning the severity of the sentence.

The more equal we become as a society the more we allow the stupid to cause problems. Years ago she’d be in a poor house somewhere well out of harm’s way. Not saying that was a good thing though….

Aren’t jurers instructed that their discussions are private? I didn’t think they were even allowed to tell the judge what they discussed, just their verdict.

So the British justice system is more interested in making an example of citizen than fair sentencing. She didn’t ask to be juror, she is a victim of a sytem she clearly doesn’t understand. What do expect if you put people that haven’t got a clue in positions of responsibility? If it shows anything it’s that the British justice system doesn’t work.

Not that innocent, she seems to be giving the impression that she was trying to change the jurors minds for her new “friend”.

This is true. However it doesn’t mean the sentence is unfair… Without seeing the full details of her trial it’s hard to be certain but the details that are reported suggest that she didn’t simply have a quick word, it was much more back and forward with details of what was actually going on privately in the jury discussions about the trial. If that had been done face-to-face I don’t think anyone would be questioning the severity of the sentence.

Am I the only one who suspects that after the first contact, the defence team nurtured her actions as an excuse to call a mis-trial when it was going against their clients.

Out of interest, did Jamie Stewart also get 8 months?

IMO, 8 months is lenient.

I actually agree with Nasty Shib. Couple of years without parole wooduv bin about right. There has to be an effective deterrent to such stupidity, and an understanding that the Justice system must be respected properly. Stupid cah.

Imagine, for example that you or a loved one has bin raped or murdered or something, and the case collapses cos some idiot has ignored the Law, and the attacker walks free?

Not so easy to demand leniency now, is it?

she is a victim of a sytem she clearly doesn’t understand. What do expect if you put people that haven’t got a clue in positions of responsibility? If it shows anything it’s that the British justice system doesn’t work.

She knew and was repeatedly told not to do her own research or contact the people involved in the case or DISCUSS THE TRIAL WITH ANYONE- not exactly a hard rule for an adult to follow now is it. She looked her up on the internet then discussed the trial with her hardly teh fault of the british justice system as far as I can tell. Can’t do the time dont do the crime pretty lenient sentence IMHO I would have sentenced her to longer as I think it is a serious breach

she is a victim of a sytem she clearly doesn’t understand

the transcript above suggests she understood perfectly well.

So the British justice system is more interested in making an example of citizen than fair sentencing. She didn’t ask to be juror, she is a victim of a sytem she clearly doesn’t understand. What do expect if you put people that haven’t got a clue in positions of responsibility? If it shows anything it’s that the British justice system doesn’t work.

The transcript above doesn’t say to me that she’s a victim of a system she doesn’t understand. And how do you get from this that the system is more interested in making examples than fair sentences?

EDIT: beat me to it Clubber!

That’s not a transcript, its a “selection” of the messages exchanged.

did Jamie Stewart also get 8 months?

sentencing deferred due to other cases ongoing.

The more I see of it the more I think she was well aware of what she was doing. That being the case 8 months is extraordinarily lenient.

Edukator – Member
She didn’t ask to be juror, she is a victim of a sytem she clearly doesn’t understand. What do expect if you put people that haven’t got a clue in positions of responsibility? If it shows anything it’s that the British justice system doesn’t work.

And how the hell are people supposed to learn about social responsibility? She will have had the laws and the consequences of breaking those laws explained, as does every juror.

It sounds to me like she’s typical of the lower class scum that have such a lack of respect for any sort of authority that they’ll rebel against it no matter what. She probably felt that she identified with the accused, indeed, I suspect she was in awe of this ‘glamorous’, exciting character.

A clear message needs sending out to preserve the legal system. It’s hardly rocket science. If this helps restore respect in the judicial system, a system that allows the common man to have a say, then it’s a good thing.

I never thought I’d hear myself saying it, but Fred speaks sense. Where did you copy that from? 😉

she’s typical of the lower class scum

That says so much more about you than the people your labelling.

Am I the only one who suspects that after the first contact, the defence team nurtured her actions as an excuse to call a mis-trial when it was going against their clients.

Not necessarily – but they’d be in deep shit if they did. Solicitors/barristers have an overriding duty to the court to inform it about such jiggery-pokery. The first contact might have been enough to blow the whole thing up anyway.

“some idiot”. Precisely, she’s been given a jail term for being thick. What do expect if you get thick amateurs to work in a highly complicated system where they are confronted with intelligent and manipulating professionals. They’ll foul up and often do.

A jury convicted the Birmingham six and how many other innocents? DNA results becoming available for old cases showed how many times the jury had imprisoned an innocent.

I’ve known a few people who’ve been called for jury service over the years and frankly I pitied the people they would be judging. IMO jurors should be given a general knowledge test which only 5% of the population is capable of passing before being called up. Take the top 5% and you have people who have chance of understanding the issues. Imagine being judged by some of the people on this forum.

At first I thought it was a harsh sentance, but the more I think, the more I understand, it has to be harsh, if there’s no respect for the justice system, everything else crumbles.

It’s drummed into you from the moment you get picked to do jury duty that you DO NOT discuss anything with anybody at all. There’s no way she thought it ok to talk to a defendant.

edukator = justice understanding fail.
A jury needs to be from a wide cross section of the public to ensure that bias is avoided.

That’s not a transcript, its a “selection” of the messages exchanged.

Fair enough, but I don’t think that puts this in any better light:

“pleeeeese don’t say anything cause Jamie they could mmis trial and I will get 4ckd too”

“some idiot”. Precisely, she’s been given a jail term for being thick. What do expect if you get thick amateurs to work in a highly complicated system where they are confronted with intelligent and manipulating professionals. They’ll foul up and often do.

no one is that thick that the instruction dont talk to anyone about the trial or contact those on trial confuses them to the extent they dont really know what it means.
I suspect the judge could have clarified if looking up the case on the internet and speaking to one of the defendants on FB contravened this if she had asked 🙄
i cant be arsed attacking your intelectual snobbery tbh

It’s drummed into you from the moment you learn to drive that you mustn’t exceed the speed limit. If you do so, crash and kill someone, you still won’t get eight months.

Just out of interest Edukator. What are your views on eugenics? A much under-utlised resource?

It’s drummed into you from the moment you learn to drive that you mustn’t exceed the speed limit. If you do so, crash and kill someone, you still won’t get eight months.

Agreed that that sucks, but it doesn’t follow that she doesn’t deserve 8 months for this.