|
5. In order to protect the judicial process from official interference, it's vital to ensure that jurors are selected honestly. How is this done here, in Russia? A special ruling by the Supreme Court mentions that several jurors in the first trial of Capt. Eduard Ulman were not on the jury list at all.
One of our sources noted this glaring breach of procedure: the jurors in the case were summoned as actual, not prospective, jurors. Exactly 16 people turned up to hear the case, selected by we know not whom. They themselves said near the end of the trial that there had been no selection process. They can be excused for not knowing that such a process was required.
So how do the enlightened prevent such tampering? Very simple. In the West, there is no limit on the number of reserve jurors. The O.J. Simpson case had a vast number of them, and the judge was quick to dismiss any that gave reason to doubt their impartiality. One was removed simply for having once stood in the same lift as the accused.
6. The main method for manipulating the composition of a jury is the secrecy surrounding its selection at the court. In Mr Pashin's opinion, names chosen by the computer are routinely "corrected". "We know that as early as 1993, in all districts the pool of potential jurors was being checked by the Interior Ministry. Only after that would the actual main jury lists be drawn up. It's quite possible that these checks were not only into criminal records or medical issues but also other aspects as well. Deleting one name and replacing it with another more desirable one is no problem."
The law says that jurors are selected at random. But there is no guarantee that it is indeed random. There is no provision in law for public oversight of the process, or of the selection itself. It's simply a matter of compiling lists. And when jurors are being assigned to a trial, again there is no guarantee that this is done at random. In our country the whole procedure is completely secret.
Under the Tsar, jury selection took place at a special and open session of the court, and names would be drawn from a large drum in the presence of the press, defence and prosecution.
In all democratic countries, jury selection is open and public and announced in advance. Anyone, not to mention a journalist, can go and see for himself how the officers of the court conduct the process. And these officers, incidentally, are entirely independent of the judges, the system is deliberately designed that way. They have nothing to gain from what amounts to the drawing of lots.
7. Quite apart from tampering with the jury lists, there is also the possibility of controlling the drawing of lots, even if it is by computer. Experts will tell you that it is technically possible to tamper with random selection by computer. Which is why in American courts, as in Tsarist Russia, they use the good old lottery drum.
IT specialists are well aware that anyone who knows the programme code can ensure that the desired outcome is achieved. Which in our case means obtaining the right names from the list of candidates. This is why the "randomly selected by computer" questions in TV quizzes are all part of the show. At least, the technology is certainly there to make it happen. There are also ways of manipulating TV and telephone opinion polls.
Начало | << | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | >>
| 
