innocent until bashed on twitter

Russell Williams is alleged to have killed 2 women, and terrozied 2 others, he is not fit to be part of this world, eye for an eye, if he is guilty!!

This is the description of the Facebook group 'Russell Williams should get the death penalty!', a group that has 2912 members sharing their opinion about the recent shocking allegations against a prominent member of the Canadian military. I do not agree with Colonel Russell Williams' alleged actions, but what worries me about this situation is the new affect social media is having on our justice system. The creator of this group added 'if he's guilt', but I don't believe the members are assuming his innocence.

The presumption of innocence is fundamentally important to democracy. But how are social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook affecting that right? The New York Times reported in March 2009 that the amount of mistrials are increasing as a result of social media. Active jurors are asked not to research any details of the case they are involved in, however, most of them are members of social networking sites that are a popular forum for uncensored public opinion. This may leave some members of the jury tainted. What ever happened to impartiality?

It's not only a matter of jurors being exposed to outside opinion that may skew their decision, lawyers and judges are shuddering at the thought of jurors using social media during trial. In Arkansas, a 12.6 million dollar judgment was overturned because juror Johnathan Powell posted tweets including:

oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter

One juror in England even posted a poll on her Facebook page to help her when she was undecided during deliberation.

Judges in the U.S. started to warn jurors about the use of technology during trial. But is the temptation of social media just too strong?