<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_222231</id>
	<title>Courts Move To Ban Juror Use of Net, Social Sites</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265137740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie passes along a NetworkWorld report on the pronouncement of a judicial conference committee recommending that trial judges <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/56940">specifically instruct jurors not to use any electronic communications</a> devices or sites during trial and deliberations. Here's the <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2010/DIR10-018.pdf">committee report</a> (PDF). <i>"If you think you're going to use your spanking new iPhone to entertain yourself next time you're on jury duty, think again. Judges are going to take an even dimmer view of jury member use of Blackberry, iPhone, or other electronic devices as a judicial policy-setting group has told district judges they should restrict jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate. ... The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie passes along a NetworkWorld report on the pronouncement of a judicial conference committee recommending that trial judges specifically instruct jurors not to use any electronic communications devices or sites during trial and deliberations .
Here 's the committee report ( PDF ) .
" If you think you 're going to use your spanking new iPhone to entertain yourself next time you 're on jury duty , think again .
Judges are going to take an even dimmer view of jury member use of Blackberry , iPhone , or other electronic devices as a judicial policy-setting group has told district judges they should restrict jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate .
... The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones , e-mail , Blackberry , iPhone , text messaging , or on Twitter , or communicate through any blog or website , through any internet chat room , or by way of any other social networking websites , including Facebook , MySpace , LinkedIn , and YouTube .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie passes along a NetworkWorld report on the pronouncement of a judicial conference committee recommending that trial judges specifically instruct jurors not to use any electronic communications devices or sites during trial and deliberations.
Here's the committee report (PDF).
"If you think you're going to use your spanking new iPhone to entertain yourself next time you're on jury duty, think again.
Judges are going to take an even dimmer view of jury member use of Blackberry, iPhone, or other electronic devices as a judicial policy-setting group has told district judges they should restrict jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate.
... The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008938</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264948980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sure makes it easier for the smart folks to avoid a jury trial if they wish to do so.</p><p>end result: annoying to do on small cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sure makes it easier for the smart folks to avoid a jury trial if they wish to do so.end result : annoying to do on small cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sure makes it easier for the smart folks to avoid a jury trial if they wish to do so.end result: annoying to do on small cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007230</id>
	<title>Makes Sense...</title>
	<author>doishmere</author>
	<datestamp>1264929840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you like jurors reading about you in some shitty tabloid? The press can hurt the innocent and guilty alike.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you like jurors reading about you in some shitty tabloid ?
The press can hurt the innocent and guilty alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you like jurors reading about you in some shitty tabloid?
The press can hurt the innocent and guilty alike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</id>
	<title>No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this different than any other method of sequestering a jury?  It makes perfect sense to me, human nature being what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different than any other method of sequestering a jury ?
It makes perfect sense to me , human nature being what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different than any other method of sequestering a jury?
It makes perfect sense to me, human nature being what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007748</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>TheRealGrogan</author>
	<datestamp>1264936200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do believe that is quite unreasonable. Just because I am a juror in a case does not mean I should not be able to do my work, monitor my servers etc. They are making you swear on so many things that only your own honesty could enforce, what's the difference here? "You must not use electronic devices to seek information pertaining to the trial"</p><p>Some of these trials can go on for weeks.</p><p>It's crap like this that made me shirk jury duty (it's not difficult to get out of, at least in Canada where I live) when facing a lengthy jury service in a child molestation trial where the defendant was pleading not guilty. I was going to do it (I felt it was my duty) until I realized what was going to happen. At that point I had to appear before the judge to get excused, citing the hardships it would have caused me. (I'd have lost clientele etc.) It's also not difficult to make yourself undesirable if reasoning isn't going to get you out of it. "My name is bubba yer honour and I hope we can make $ethnicgroup burn for what they did"</p><p>So if you want good jurors, don't expect them to give up their lives or they just aren't going to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do believe that is quite unreasonable .
Just because I am a juror in a case does not mean I should not be able to do my work , monitor my servers etc .
They are making you swear on so many things that only your own honesty could enforce , what 's the difference here ?
" You must not use electronic devices to seek information pertaining to the trial " Some of these trials can go on for weeks.It 's crap like this that made me shirk jury duty ( it 's not difficult to get out of , at least in Canada where I live ) when facing a lengthy jury service in a child molestation trial where the defendant was pleading not guilty .
I was going to do it ( I felt it was my duty ) until I realized what was going to happen .
At that point I had to appear before the judge to get excused , citing the hardships it would have caused me .
( I 'd have lost clientele etc .
) It 's also not difficult to make yourself undesirable if reasoning is n't going to get you out of it .
" My name is bubba yer honour and I hope we can make $ ethnicgroup burn for what they did " So if you want good jurors , do n't expect them to give up their lives or they just are n't going to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do believe that is quite unreasonable.
Just because I am a juror in a case does not mean I should not be able to do my work, monitor my servers etc.
They are making you swear on so many things that only your own honesty could enforce, what's the difference here?
"You must not use electronic devices to seek information pertaining to the trial"Some of these trials can go on for weeks.It's crap like this that made me shirk jury duty (it's not difficult to get out of, at least in Canada where I live) when facing a lengthy jury service in a child molestation trial where the defendant was pleading not guilty.
I was going to do it (I felt it was my duty) until I realized what was going to happen.
At that point I had to appear before the judge to get excused, citing the hardships it would have caused me.
(I'd have lost clientele etc.
) It's also not difficult to make yourself undesirable if reasoning isn't going to get you out of it.
"My name is bubba yer honour and I hope we can make $ethnicgroup burn for what they did"So if you want good jurors, don't expect them to give up their lives or they just aren't going to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007570</id>
	<title>Advice for Jurors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Swear you'll be fair and neutral.<br>2. If it's a criminal case, vote Not Guilty.  Anybody asks you, just say, I didn't believe the evidence.<br>3. If it's a civil case, the defendant is really an insurance company, but you'll be told the defendant is Joe Average.  Award the plaintiff lots of money!  I'd do the same for you.  Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Swear you 'll be fair and neutral.2 .
If it 's a criminal case , vote Not Guilty .
Anybody asks you , just say , I did n't believe the evidence.3 .
If it 's a civil case , the defendant is really an insurance company , but you 'll be told the defendant is Joe Average .
Award the plaintiff lots of money !
I 'd do the same for you .
Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Swear you'll be fair and neutral.2.
If it's a criminal case, vote Not Guilty.
Anybody asks you, just say, I didn't believe the evidence.3.
If it's a civil case, the defendant is really an insurance company, but you'll be told the defendant is Joe Average.
Award the plaintiff lots of money!
I'd do the same for you.
Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31021232</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Kleppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265292960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't watch the news anyways because it's mostly about who was murdered locally anyways.<br> <br>

Most companies recognize jury duty anyways so being caught up at work should not pose a danger to ones job. Unless the trial is lengthy and this impairs your company's ability to function normally without you. I'm not a lawyer and don't know the full details surrounding the process. If they wrongfully terminate you I suppose you could take your employer to court. Wouldn't that be a conundrum?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't watch the news anyways because it 's mostly about who was murdered locally anyways .
Most companies recognize jury duty anyways so being caught up at work should not pose a danger to ones job .
Unless the trial is lengthy and this impairs your company 's ability to function normally without you .
I 'm not a lawyer and do n't know the full details surrounding the process .
If they wrongfully terminate you I suppose you could take your employer to court .
Would n't that be a conundrum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't watch the news anyways because it's mostly about who was murdered locally anyways.
Most companies recognize jury duty anyways so being caught up at work should not pose a danger to ones job.
Unless the trial is lengthy and this impairs your company's ability to function normally without you.
I'm not a lawyer and don't know the full details surrounding the process.
If they wrongfully terminate you I suppose you could take your employer to court.
Wouldn't that be a conundrum?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007912</id>
	<title>Re:No TV, No Web, No Slashdot, No Newspaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A ban on pizza, most certainly.  Can't risk a pizza arriving that has the face of [insert deity here] baked in, resulting in jury pollution from divine sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ban on pizza , most certainly .
Ca n't risk a pizza arriving that has the face of [ insert deity here ] baked in , resulting in jury pollution from divine sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A ban on pizza, most certainly.
Can't risk a pizza arriving that has the face of [insert deity here] baked in, resulting in jury pollution from divine sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007436</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only information you are supposed to use to come to a verdict is what you hear at trial.  Nothing else except your own knowledge and experience.  In the two trials I have been on, you could not even take notes during the trial to help refresh your memory about the testimony.  In my second stint at jury duty, we were allowed pencil and paper during deliberations because there were 18 charges to keep track of.
How to get out of it?
I just started a new job and I might get fired if I serve. (Doesn't always work.)
I think the defendant should take the stand in his own defense or else he/she looks more guilty.
I know the defendant or his/her attorneys or the victim.
Anyone arrested by the police must be guilty of something.
I don't understand English well enough.
I play tennis with the District Attorney's wife.
I or a family member have been arrested recently.
etc. etc. etc.

You should serve if asked!  I found it really interesting and you get to trash the annoying attorneys during deliberation which is always fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only information you are supposed to use to come to a verdict is what you hear at trial .
Nothing else except your own knowledge and experience .
In the two trials I have been on , you could not even take notes during the trial to help refresh your memory about the testimony .
In my second stint at jury duty , we were allowed pencil and paper during deliberations because there were 18 charges to keep track of .
How to get out of it ?
I just started a new job and I might get fired if I serve .
( Does n't always work .
) I think the defendant should take the stand in his own defense or else he/she looks more guilty .
I know the defendant or his/her attorneys or the victim .
Anyone arrested by the police must be guilty of something .
I do n't understand English well enough .
I play tennis with the District Attorney 's wife .
I or a family member have been arrested recently .
etc. etc .
etc . You should serve if asked !
I found it really interesting and you get to trash the annoying attorneys during deliberation which is always fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only information you are supposed to use to come to a verdict is what you hear at trial.
Nothing else except your own knowledge and experience.
In the two trials I have been on, you could not even take notes during the trial to help refresh your memory about the testimony.
In my second stint at jury duty, we were allowed pencil and paper during deliberations because there were 18 charges to keep track of.
How to get out of it?
I just started a new job and I might get fired if I serve.
(Doesn't always work.
)
I think the defendant should take the stand in his own defense or else he/she looks more guilty.
I know the defendant or his/her attorneys or the victim.
Anyone arrested by the police must be guilty of something.
I don't understand English well enough.
I play tennis with the District Attorney's wife.
I or a family member have been arrested recently.
etc. etc.
etc.

You should serve if asked!
I found it really interesting and you get to trash the annoying attorneys during deliberation which is always fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006852</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264969380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jury filtering is so anal anyhow. What they should do is not require unanimous juries; then they won't be so paranoid about one flake getting in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jury filtering is so anal anyhow .
What they should do is not require unanimous juries ; then they wo n't be so paranoid about one flake getting in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jury filtering is so anal anyhow.
What they should do is not require unanimous juries; then they won't be so paranoid about one flake getting in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31024876</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1265311020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, you have lawyers speaking what <i>looks</i> like English but has only a thin connection to it.</p></div><p>You're overstating the problem.  Lawyers are not speaking Chinese, though perhaps a more appropriate comparison might be Shakespearean English.  If we listen carefully, we get the general sense of what's going on, even if some details fly past us.  It's the job of the attorneys, judge, and expert witnesses (just like Shakespearean actors) to point out to juries when those words actually do mean something significant that is different from standard English AND is relevant to the trial at hand.  For example, if someone is claiming an insanity defense, attorneys will generally debate the actually legal definition of "insanity" with witnesses, and point out things about that definition in opening/closing statements.  That's because the jury's decision is crucially dependent on knowledge of that term, in its legal sense.  If, on the other hand, a lawyer is raising an obscure motion that has to do with court procedure, but doesn't really have an impact on the jury's decision, why do they need to know what the technical language of that procedure means?</p><p>If one lawyer is using a term in a legal sense to mislead the jury, it's the job of the other attorneys and/or judge to point out that potential misunderstanding.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, I work as a software engineer.  I know, even stated humbly and conservatively, <b>vastly</b> more about how
modern electronic devices work than the average Joe.</p></div><p>Again, the same thing applies.  It's the job of the people conducting the jury to make sure they educate the jury on the <i>relevant</i> technical details of the case, often by calling expert witnesses.  Sure, the jury will not a complete understanding, but the point of having advocates on both sides is to ensure that one side isn't misleading the jury by providing inaccurate technical details.</p><p>Honestly, in part, expert juries are not used because it may result in a "clique" effect.  You may think that you'd get a better trial with a bunch of software engineers, but what if the trial has to do with some controversial area of the field?  What if all those engineers are on one side of an issue or on an opposing side to your beliefs?  How is that more fair than an ignorant jury?</p><p>But, more importantly, your argument has to apply to everyone.  Do we really want bank executives judged by juries of bank executives?  Politicians judged by juries of politicians?  You may trust software engineers to be reasonably impartial, but don't you think that many such groups would tend to side with "their own" in such trials?  This wouldn't be any different from the historical US South, where an all-white jury judging a white man who perpetrated a crime against a black man/woman was judged differently.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, that requires having a <b>well informed</b> jury, not the first dozen morons you could find who haven't the
curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months.</p></div><p>Yes, but how do you define "well informed"?  Did the jury watch CNN or Fox News?  Does that matter, even if the two networks might have opposing positions on the trial?</p><p>Your first couple arguments seem to be arguing for expert juries.  At least in the legal sense, I can see the rationale for such things, which is in part why we have appellate courts composed of expert judges to correct legal errors.  But an "informed" jury??  I don't really think that would be more fair, given the fragmentation of the news media, than any other jury that comes in with their own biases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you have lawyers speaking what looks like English but has only a thin connection to it.You 're overstating the problem .
Lawyers are not speaking Chinese , though perhaps a more appropriate comparison might be Shakespearean English .
If we listen carefully , we get the general sense of what 's going on , even if some details fly past us .
It 's the job of the attorneys , judge , and expert witnesses ( just like Shakespearean actors ) to point out to juries when those words actually do mean something significant that is different from standard English AND is relevant to the trial at hand .
For example , if someone is claiming an insanity defense , attorneys will generally debate the actually legal definition of " insanity " with witnesses , and point out things about that definition in opening/closing statements .
That 's because the jury 's decision is crucially dependent on knowledge of that term , in its legal sense .
If , on the other hand , a lawyer is raising an obscure motion that has to do with court procedure , but does n't really have an impact on the jury 's decision , why do they need to know what the technical language of that procedure means ? If one lawyer is using a term in a legal sense to mislead the jury , it 's the job of the other attorneys and/or judge to point out that potential misunderstanding.Second , I work as a software engineer .
I know , even stated humbly and conservatively , vastly more about how modern electronic devices work than the average Joe.Again , the same thing applies .
It 's the job of the people conducting the jury to make sure they educate the jury on the relevant technical details of the case , often by calling expert witnesses .
Sure , the jury will not a complete understanding , but the point of having advocates on both sides is to ensure that one side is n't misleading the jury by providing inaccurate technical details.Honestly , in part , expert juries are not used because it may result in a " clique " effect .
You may think that you 'd get a better trial with a bunch of software engineers , but what if the trial has to do with some controversial area of the field ?
What if all those engineers are on one side of an issue or on an opposing side to your beliefs ?
How is that more fair than an ignorant jury ? But , more importantly , your argument has to apply to everyone .
Do we really want bank executives judged by juries of bank executives ?
Politicians judged by juries of politicians ?
You may trust software engineers to be reasonably impartial , but do n't you think that many such groups would tend to side with " their own " in such trials ?
This would n't be any different from the historical US South , where an all-white jury judging a white man who perpetrated a crime against a black man/woman was judged differently.Unfortunately , that requires having a well informed jury , not the first dozen morons you could find who have n't the curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months.Yes , but how do you define " well informed " ?
Did the jury watch CNN or Fox News ?
Does that matter , even if the two networks might have opposing positions on the trial ? Your first couple arguments seem to be arguing for expert juries .
At least in the legal sense , I can see the rationale for such things , which is in part why we have appellate courts composed of expert judges to correct legal errors .
But an " informed " jury ? ?
I do n't really think that would be more fair , given the fragmentation of the news media , than any other jury that comes in with their own biases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you have lawyers speaking what looks like English but has only a thin connection to it.You're overstating the problem.
Lawyers are not speaking Chinese, though perhaps a more appropriate comparison might be Shakespearean English.
If we listen carefully, we get the general sense of what's going on, even if some details fly past us.
It's the job of the attorneys, judge, and expert witnesses (just like Shakespearean actors) to point out to juries when those words actually do mean something significant that is different from standard English AND is relevant to the trial at hand.
For example, if someone is claiming an insanity defense, attorneys will generally debate the actually legal definition of "insanity" with witnesses, and point out things about that definition in opening/closing statements.
That's because the jury's decision is crucially dependent on knowledge of that term, in its legal sense.
If, on the other hand, a lawyer is raising an obscure motion that has to do with court procedure, but doesn't really have an impact on the jury's decision, why do they need to know what the technical language of that procedure means?If one lawyer is using a term in a legal sense to mislead the jury, it's the job of the other attorneys and/or judge to point out that potential misunderstanding.Second, I work as a software engineer.
I know, even stated humbly and conservatively, vastly more about how
modern electronic devices work than the average Joe.Again, the same thing applies.
It's the job of the people conducting the jury to make sure they educate the jury on the relevant technical details of the case, often by calling expert witnesses.
Sure, the jury will not a complete understanding, but the point of having advocates on both sides is to ensure that one side isn't misleading the jury by providing inaccurate technical details.Honestly, in part, expert juries are not used because it may result in a "clique" effect.
You may think that you'd get a better trial with a bunch of software engineers, but what if the trial has to do with some controversial area of the field?
What if all those engineers are on one side of an issue or on an opposing side to your beliefs?
How is that more fair than an ignorant jury?But, more importantly, your argument has to apply to everyone.
Do we really want bank executives judged by juries of bank executives?
Politicians judged by juries of politicians?
You may trust software engineers to be reasonably impartial, but don't you think that many such groups would tend to side with "their own" in such trials?
This wouldn't be any different from the historical US South, where an all-white jury judging a white man who perpetrated a crime against a black man/woman was judged differently.Unfortunately, that requires having a well informed jury, not the first dozen morons you could find who haven't the
curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months.Yes, but how do you define "well informed"?
Did the jury watch CNN or Fox News?
Does that matter, even if the two networks might have opposing positions on the trial?Your first couple arguments seem to be arguing for expert juries.
At least in the legal sense, I can see the rationale for such things, which is in part why we have appellate courts composed of expert judges to correct legal errors.
But an "informed" jury??
I don't really think that would be more fair, given the fragmentation of the news media, than any other jury that comes in with their own biases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010176</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1264955160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.</p></div><p>Trials do not always exist for the purpose of a just decision, either. How many times have Microsoft conducted confusing court cases in front of ordinary juries in an attempt to prevent justice!

</p><p>To control what a juror may know or not know is an abuse of human rights; the whole reason a jury is involved is to get a decision from "the people". Putting "the people" in a cage and controlling what they know and how they may rule is the legal system's attempt to remove power from "the power" and place it back in the hands of judges and lawyers.

</p><p>If a juror is to make a decision then no one may morally impede that juror from their duty to make the best decision they can. If the juror visits the crime scene they should be applauded. If the juror researches the web on a topic relevant to the case they should be applauded.

</p><p>Only a corrupt member of the legal profession would advocate treating jurors as less than human.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jurors find this frustrating , but trials do not exist for their entertainment.Trials do not always exist for the purpose of a just decision , either .
How many times have Microsoft conducted confusing court cases in front of ordinary juries in an attempt to prevent justice !
To control what a juror may know or not know is an abuse of human rights ; the whole reason a jury is involved is to get a decision from " the people " .
Putting " the people " in a cage and controlling what they know and how they may rule is the legal system 's attempt to remove power from " the power " and place it back in the hands of judges and lawyers .
If a juror is to make a decision then no one may morally impede that juror from their duty to make the best decision they can .
If the juror visits the crime scene they should be applauded .
If the juror researches the web on a topic relevant to the case they should be applauded .
Only a corrupt member of the legal profession would advocate treating jurors as less than human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.Trials do not always exist for the purpose of a just decision, either.
How many times have Microsoft conducted confusing court cases in front of ordinary juries in an attempt to prevent justice!
To control what a juror may know or not know is an abuse of human rights; the whole reason a jury is involved is to get a decision from "the people".
Putting "the people" in a cage and controlling what they know and how they may rule is the legal system's attempt to remove power from "the power" and place it back in the hands of judges and lawyers.
If a juror is to make a decision then no one may morally impede that juror from their duty to make the best decision they can.
If the juror visits the crime scene they should be applauded.
If the juror researches the web on a topic relevant to the case they should be applauded.
Only a corrupt member of the legal profession would advocate treating jurors as less than human.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007046</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1264971360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one </i> <br> <br>
You're not. You're expected to do as you're told, and think what they tell you to think. It's common for some sort of deal to have taken place, or for some sort of circumstance affecting another case to have occurred, but the jury is usually kept in the dark about it, even if they do catch a strong whiff of rodent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How in the world is a " normal " person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one You 're not .
You 're expected to do as you 're told , and think what they tell you to think .
It 's common for some sort of deal to have taken place , or for some sort of circumstance affecting another case to have occurred , but the jury is usually kept in the dark about it , even if they do catch a strong whiff of rodent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one   
You're not.
You're expected to do as you're told, and think what they tell you to think.
It's common for some sort of deal to have taken place, or for some sort of circumstance affecting another case to have occurred, but the jury is usually kept in the dark about it, even if they do catch a strong whiff of rodent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>mpoulton</author>
	<datestamp>1264928700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
</i> </p><p>Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?</p></div><p>If the definition of a word is of critical importance in a case, that is all the more reason for jurors NOT to consult a dictionary.  Dictionary authors are not the final arbiters of legal disputes, and their opinion on what words mean carries no weight in court.  Besides, which dictionary rules?  No, it is the jurors' understanding of the relevant terms that governs.  The parties will surely spare no efforts in explaining their preferred interpretations, if it's important to the case.  If it's not a matter that's open to interpretation by the jurors, then the judge will provide the definition to be used.  These same rules apply to all information in the trial, not just definitions of words.  Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge.  If the parties fail to provide enough information, they suffer the consequences in the form of a poorly informed verdict.  Because outside information cannot be vetted for accuracy or legal relevance, and cannot be rebutted by the parties, it is ENTIRELY IMPROPER for jurors to consider it, and DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS!  Before you argue otherwise, put yourself in the position of either party to the case and consider how you would want this to be handled.  You will inevitably reach the same conclusion - complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute.  Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.<br> <br>

How can jurors tell if a lawyer (or more importantly, a witness) is pulling a fast one?  Two ways: first, the other attorney damn well ought to be calling him out.  That's his job.  Second, jurors apply the same common sense factors that let them determine trustworthiness every day outside the courtroom.  What if the judge is pulling a fast one?  That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for.  Appellate judges earn their salaries by determining when trial judges got things wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically , those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials , search the internet , websites , blogs , or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial , during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise .
Okay , maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense , but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all .
How in the world is a " normal " person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they are n't even allowed to research what is being said ? If the definition of a word is of critical importance in a case , that is all the more reason for jurors NOT to consult a dictionary .
Dictionary authors are not the final arbiters of legal disputes , and their opinion on what words mean carries no weight in court .
Besides , which dictionary rules ?
No , it is the jurors ' understanding of the relevant terms that governs .
The parties will surely spare no efforts in explaining their preferred interpretations , if it 's important to the case .
If it 's not a matter that 's open to interpretation by the jurors , then the judge will provide the definition to be used .
These same rules apply to all information in the trial , not just definitions of words .
Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties , or by the judge .
If the parties fail to provide enough information , they suffer the consequences in the form of a poorly informed verdict .
Because outside information can not be vetted for accuracy or legal relevance , and can not be rebutted by the parties , it is ENTIRELY IMPROPER for jurors to consider it , and DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS !
Before you argue otherwise , put yourself in the position of either party to the case and consider how you would want this to be handled .
You will inevitably reach the same conclusion - complete control of the jury 's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute .
Jurors find this frustrating , but trials do not exist for their entertainment .
How can jurors tell if a lawyer ( or more importantly , a witness ) is pulling a fast one ?
Two ways : first , the other attorney damn well ought to be calling him out .
That 's his job .
Second , jurors apply the same common sense factors that let them determine trustworthiness every day outside the courtroom .
What if the judge is pulling a fast one ?
That 's not for the jury to identify or correct - that 's what appellate courts are for .
Appellate judges earn their salaries by determining when trial judges got things wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all.
How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?If the definition of a word is of critical importance in a case, that is all the more reason for jurors NOT to consult a dictionary.
Dictionary authors are not the final arbiters of legal disputes, and their opinion on what words mean carries no weight in court.
Besides, which dictionary rules?
No, it is the jurors' understanding of the relevant terms that governs.
The parties will surely spare no efforts in explaining their preferred interpretations, if it's important to the case.
If it's not a matter that's open to interpretation by the jurors, then the judge will provide the definition to be used.
These same rules apply to all information in the trial, not just definitions of words.
Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge.
If the parties fail to provide enough information, they suffer the consequences in the form of a poorly informed verdict.
Because outside information cannot be vetted for accuracy or legal relevance, and cannot be rebutted by the parties, it is ENTIRELY IMPROPER for jurors to consider it, and DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS!
Before you argue otherwise, put yourself in the position of either party to the case and consider how you would want this to be handled.
You will inevitably reach the same conclusion - complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute.
Jurors find this frustrating, but trials do not exist for their entertainment.
How can jurors tell if a lawyer (or more importantly, a witness) is pulling a fast one?
Two ways: first, the other attorney damn well ought to be calling him out.
That's his job.
Second, jurors apply the same common sense factors that let them determine trustworthiness every day outside the courtroom.
What if the judge is pulling a fast one?
That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what appellate courts are for.
Appellate judges earn their salaries by determining when trial judges got things wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009988</id>
	<title>I was waiting for the movie reference</title>
	<author>TheOldBear</author>
	<datestamp>1264954200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the movie, Juror number 8 demonstrates that one piece of the People's evidence [a distinctive switchblade knife] was not unique, by purchasing a copy of it while on a break.

The electronic equivalent would probably be finding a picture [Amazon, ebay] and passing it around. This is much less dramatic than jabbing the duplicate into the table.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the movie , Juror number 8 demonstrates that one piece of the People 's evidence [ a distinctive switchblade knife ] was not unique , by purchasing a copy of it while on a break .
The electronic equivalent would probably be finding a picture [ Amazon , ebay ] and passing it around .
This is much less dramatic than jabbing the duplicate into the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the movie, Juror number 8 demonstrates that one piece of the People's evidence [a distinctive switchblade knife] was not unique, by purchasing a copy of it while on a break.
The electronic equivalent would probably be finding a picture [Amazon, ebay] and passing it around.
This is much less dramatic than jabbing the duplicate into the table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008342</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1264943520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...</p></div><p>I don't see how they can reasonably expect people to cease existing. Without the internet there's nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can " instruct " the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial , but that 's not going to stop too many people...I do n't see how they can reasonably expect people to cease existing .
Without the internet there 's nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...I don't see how they can reasonably expect people to cease existing.
Without the internet there's nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31026444</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1265275740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you actually followed all those instructions?  Sorry, but you're not too bright.  What I do in my home is MY business, not some judge's.  And there's virtually nothing I won't talk to my wife about, and no judge is going to change that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you actually followed all those instructions ?
Sorry , but you 're not too bright .
What I do in my home is MY business , not some judge 's .
And there 's virtually nothing I wo n't talk to my wife about , and no judge is going to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you actually followed all those instructions?
Sorry, but you're not too bright.
What I do in my home is MY business, not some judge's.
And there's virtually nothing I won't talk to my wife about, and no judge is going to change that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>japhering</author>
	<datestamp>1264952880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is people using the internet to look up information that they have been told they can't use when deliberating.</p><p>Things like the defendants personal wealth, criminal record, information on "evidence" that has been ruled inadmissible or just plain trying to stir up public opinion in an effort to sway the court.</p><p>On the flip side some defendants have tried harassing jurors via their personal electronics or having some one physically show up at a jurors residence or place of work.</p><p>However, given that most juries are not sequestered, this like all the other instructions depend on honesty of the juror and the people they associate with.</p><p>Having been on a non-sequestered jury for a murder trail, it is a pain in the butt to go home after a day in the jury box and not be able to watch the evening news, read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other (all things banned by the judge in his instructions).</p><p>How was your day?</p><p>Jury duty all day.</p><p>What type of case?</p><p>Can't tell you.</p><p>How long will it last?</p><p>Can't tell you?</p><p>I'm going to bed, will you watch the news and tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow?</p><p>Sorry, I can't watch the news.</p><p>Well, then look it up on the internet.</p><p>Sorry, I'm not allowed to use the internet.</p><p>Then how are you going to stay caught up at work?</p><p>I won't I'm on jury duty and can't use the internet.</p><p>and on and on and on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is people using the internet to look up information that they have been told they ca n't use when deliberating.Things like the defendants personal wealth , criminal record , information on " evidence " that has been ruled inadmissible or just plain trying to stir up public opinion in an effort to sway the court.On the flip side some defendants have tried harassing jurors via their personal electronics or having some one physically show up at a jurors residence or place of work.However , given that most juries are not sequestered , this like all the other instructions depend on honesty of the juror and the people they associate with.Having been on a non-sequestered jury for a murder trail , it is a pain in the butt to go home after a day in the jury box and not be able to watch the evening news , read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other ( all things banned by the judge in his instructions ) .How was your day ? Jury duty all day.What type of case ? Ca n't tell you.How long will it last ? Ca n't tell you ? I 'm going to bed , will you watch the news and tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow ? Sorry , I ca n't watch the news.Well , then look it up on the internet.Sorry , I 'm not allowed to use the internet.Then how are you going to stay caught up at work ? I wo n't I 'm on jury duty and ca n't use the internet.and on and on and on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is people using the internet to look up information that they have been told they can't use when deliberating.Things like the defendants personal wealth, criminal record, information on "evidence" that has been ruled inadmissible or just plain trying to stir up public opinion in an effort to sway the court.On the flip side some defendants have tried harassing jurors via their personal electronics or having some one physically show up at a jurors residence or place of work.However, given that most juries are not sequestered, this like all the other instructions depend on honesty of the juror and the people they associate with.Having been on a non-sequestered jury for a murder trail, it is a pain in the butt to go home after a day in the jury box and not be able to watch the evening news, read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other (all things banned by the judge in his instructions).How was your day?Jury duty all day.What type of case?Can't tell you.How long will it last?Can't tell you?I'm going to bed, will you watch the news and tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow?Sorry, I can't watch the news.Well, then look it up on the internet.Sorry, I'm not allowed to use the internet.Then how are you going to stay caught up at work?I won't I'm on jury duty and can't use the internet.and on and on and on</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011618</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1264960680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is interesting that you choose to use the example of My Cousin Vinnie and automechanics to illustrate your point, when it makes exactly the opposite point.  You claim that the jury must already have knowledge of mechanics.  However, it was the expert witness for the defense (proven to be an expert in court) that had the specific knowledge, and imparted that knowledge to the jury during the trial.  The expert witness for the prosecution could not rebut that knowledge, so the jury is free to take it as fact.  There was no indication that anyone on the jury (or the movie audience for that matter) had any clue at all about cars,  yet everyone of them could reach the appropriate conclusion based solely on what was presented at trial.
</p><p>Letting the jurors use their own knowledge is problematic, to say the least.  First, how did they get that knowledge?  Are they actually an expert in that particular area, or did they just read something on the internet?  How do the rest of the jurors know that the one with the supposed knowledge is not wrong or just making it up (there is no-one to rebut them, unlike in the courtroom).
</p><p>To give a real example of where 'outside knowledge' is bad, I was in the jury pool for a criminal case.  We were there for several hours, and the jury was just about seated, when the judge came in and said 'sorry everyone, the defendant didn't show up.  You are dismissed from further duty'.  He then explained that because the defendant didn't show up as scheduled, we had that knowledge and were biased against him already.  We did not know the reason he wasn't there - he could have skipped, he could be sick or injured, etc.  Whatever the reason, showing up late had nothing to do with the reason he was on trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is interesting that you choose to use the example of My Cousin Vinnie and automechanics to illustrate your point , when it makes exactly the opposite point .
You claim that the jury must already have knowledge of mechanics .
However , it was the expert witness for the defense ( proven to be an expert in court ) that had the specific knowledge , and imparted that knowledge to the jury during the trial .
The expert witness for the prosecution could not rebut that knowledge , so the jury is free to take it as fact .
There was no indication that anyone on the jury ( or the movie audience for that matter ) had any clue at all about cars , yet everyone of them could reach the appropriate conclusion based solely on what was presented at trial .
Letting the jurors use their own knowledge is problematic , to say the least .
First , how did they get that knowledge ?
Are they actually an expert in that particular area , or did they just read something on the internet ?
How do the rest of the jurors know that the one with the supposed knowledge is not wrong or just making it up ( there is no-one to rebut them , unlike in the courtroom ) .
To give a real example of where 'outside knowledge ' is bad , I was in the jury pool for a criminal case .
We were there for several hours , and the jury was just about seated , when the judge came in and said 'sorry everyone , the defendant did n't show up .
You are dismissed from further duty' .
He then explained that because the defendant did n't show up as scheduled , we had that knowledge and were biased against him already .
We did not know the reason he was n't there - he could have skipped , he could be sick or injured , etc .
Whatever the reason , showing up late had nothing to do with the reason he was on trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is interesting that you choose to use the example of My Cousin Vinnie and automechanics to illustrate your point, when it makes exactly the opposite point.
You claim that the jury must already have knowledge of mechanics.
However, it was the expert witness for the defense (proven to be an expert in court) that had the specific knowledge, and imparted that knowledge to the jury during the trial.
The expert witness for the prosecution could not rebut that knowledge, so the jury is free to take it as fact.
There was no indication that anyone on the jury (or the movie audience for that matter) had any clue at all about cars,  yet everyone of them could reach the appropriate conclusion based solely on what was presented at trial.
Letting the jurors use their own knowledge is problematic, to say the least.
First, how did they get that knowledge?
Are they actually an expert in that particular area, or did they just read something on the internet?
How do the rest of the jurors know that the one with the supposed knowledge is not wrong or just making it up (there is no-one to rebut them, unlike in the courtroom).
To give a real example of where 'outside knowledge' is bad, I was in the jury pool for a criminal case.
We were there for several hours, and the jury was just about seated, when the judge came in and said 'sorry everyone, the defendant didn't show up.
You are dismissed from further duty'.
He then explained that because the defendant didn't show up as scheduled, we had that knowledge and were biased against him already.
We did not know the reason he wasn't there - he could have skipped, he could be sick or injured, etc.
Whatever the reason, showing up late had nothing to do with the reason he was on trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020402</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265282940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.<br>Allowing that person to read a dictionary, research terms, definitions, subjects, etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not only does it not create a 'true jury of peers' (whatever that means) but it also <i>doesn't</i> ensure that each and every fact considered by the jury is brought out in open court and the other side given a chance to rebut, express their opinion, or express their interpretation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.Allowing that person to read a dictionary , research terms , definitions , subjects , etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.Not only does it not create a 'true jury of peers ' ( whatever that means ) but it also does n't ensure that each and every fact considered by the jury is brought out in open court and the other side given a chance to rebut , express their opinion , or express their interpretation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.Allowing that person to read a dictionary, research terms, definitions, subjects, etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.Not only does it not create a 'true jury of peers' (whatever that means) but it also doesn't ensure that each and every fact considered by the jury is brought out in open court and the other side given a chance to rebut, express their opinion, or express their interpretation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31032092</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>niftymitch</author>
	<datestamp>1265401080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But most jury's are not sequestered.
At first glance I did not see that this
jury was.

For a teenager this would be a punitive
action....</htmltext>
<tokenext>But most jury 's are not sequestered .
At first glance I did not see that this jury was .
For a teenager this would be a punitive action... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But most jury's are not sequestered.
At first glance I did not see that this
jury was.
For a teenager this would be a punitive
action....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011698</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1264960980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge.</i> <br>
<br>
This premise leads to an outright absurdity.<br>
<br>
First, you have lawyers speaking what <i>looks</i> like English but has only a thin connection to it.  Would you feel
comfortable sentencing a man to death in a trial conducted entirely in Mandarin Chinese (or if you happen to speak Mandarin,
substitute any other language you <i>don't</i> know)?  Except, this works out even worse, since the jury <b>thinks</b>
they understand, but most likely do <i>not</i> follow key subtleties in either argument.<br>
<br>
Second, I work as a software engineer.  I know, even stated humbly and conservatively, <b>vastly</b> more about how
modern electronic devices work than the average Joe.  In a trial where such information means the difference between
innocence and guilt, you either need <i>everyone</i> to have my level of understanding, or expect me to play dumb and
listen to TweedleDee and TweedleDum argue about whether computers run by pixie dust or really small gerbils running on
their wheels.<br>
<br>
And finally...<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>What if the judge is pulling a fast one? That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what
appellate courts are for.</i> <br>
<br>
BS.  <b>Every</b> single aspect of the trial should enter the jury's consideration.  We have Jury Nullification for
precisely that reason.  Think the judge has pulled a fast one because the government can't afford to let yet another
drug smuggler go free on a technicality?  Innocent by way of I-bloody-well-don't-feel-like-saying-guilty.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, that requires having a <b>well informed</b> jury, not the first dozen morons you could find who haven't the
curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties , or by the judge .
This premise leads to an outright absurdity .
First , you have lawyers speaking what looks like English but has only a thin connection to it .
Would you feel comfortable sentencing a man to death in a trial conducted entirely in Mandarin Chinese ( or if you happen to speak Mandarin , substitute any other language you do n't know ) ?
Except , this works out even worse , since the jury thinks they understand , but most likely do not follow key subtleties in either argument .
Second , I work as a software engineer .
I know , even stated humbly and conservatively , vastly more about how modern electronic devices work than the average Joe .
In a trial where such information means the difference between innocence and guilt , you either need everyone to have my level of understanding , or expect me to play dumb and listen to TweedleDee and TweedleDum argue about whether computers run by pixie dust or really small gerbils running on their wheels .
And finally.. . What if the judge is pulling a fast one ?
That 's not for the jury to identify or correct - that 's what appellate courts are for .
BS. Every single aspect of the trial should enter the jury 's consideration .
We have Jury Nullification for precisely that reason .
Think the judge has pulled a fast one because the government ca n't afford to let yet another drug smuggler go free on a technicality ?
Innocent by way of I-bloody-well-do n't-feel-like-saying-guilty .
Unfortunately , that requires having a well informed jury , not the first dozen morons you could find who have n't the curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any information the jury needs to know to resolve the case must be provided by the parties, or by the judge.
This premise leads to an outright absurdity.
First, you have lawyers speaking what looks like English but has only a thin connection to it.
Would you feel
comfortable sentencing a man to death in a trial conducted entirely in Mandarin Chinese (or if you happen to speak Mandarin,
substitute any other language you don't know)?
Except, this works out even worse, since the jury thinks
they understand, but most likely do not follow key subtleties in either argument.
Second, I work as a software engineer.
I know, even stated humbly and conservatively, vastly more about how
modern electronic devices work than the average Joe.
In a trial where such information means the difference between
innocence and guilt, you either need everyone to have my level of understanding, or expect me to play dumb and
listen to TweedleDee and TweedleDum argue about whether computers run by pixie dust or really small gerbils running on
their wheels.
And finally...


What if the judge is pulling a fast one?
That's not for the jury to identify or correct - that's what
appellate courts are for.
BS.  Every single aspect of the trial should enter the jury's consideration.
We have Jury Nullification for
precisely that reason.
Think the judge has pulled a fast one because the government can't afford to let yet another
drug smuggler go free on a technicality?
Innocent by way of I-bloody-well-don't-feel-like-saying-guilty.
Unfortunately, that requires having a well informed jury, not the first dozen morons you could find who haven't the
curiosity or resources to have watched TV in the last two months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1264969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway - but I think "sequestering" a jury is pretty rare - the state has to provide hotel accommodations and food to everyone in the jury, which is really expensive!</p><p>This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc.  But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation.  They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway - but I think " sequestering " a jury is pretty rare - the state has to provide hotel accommodations and food to everyone in the jury , which is really expensive ! This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks , etc .
But I ca n't see how it 's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation .
They can " instruct " the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial , but that 's not going to stop too many people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway - but I think "sequestering" a jury is pretty rare - the state has to provide hotel accommodations and food to everyone in the jury, which is really expensive!This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc.
But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation.
They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31028114</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1265283720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very few countries have juries any more; they just don't work very well.  Most European countries abolished juries decades ago, and they seem to be doing just fine.  Here, we get all kinds of crazy verdicts with our juries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very few countries have juries any more ; they just do n't work very well .
Most European countries abolished juries decades ago , and they seem to be doing just fine .
Here , we get all kinds of crazy verdicts with our juries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very few countries have juries any more; they just don't work very well.
Most European countries abolished juries decades ago, and they seem to be doing just fine.
Here, we get all kinds of crazy verdicts with our juries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006982</id>
	<title>When is their use banned?</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1264970820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm assuming they are talking about banning their use *during* trials, e.g. when the jurors are actually in the jury box or deliberating outside the courtroom. It seems a bit ridiculous to ban use of the devices when jurors are on their own time, outside the trial, at home, commuting, etc. In fact here in Finland it would be against the law to do so since access to the internet has recently been granted a right to all citizens.</p><p>I totally agree that such devices should not be allowed during the actual trial or when jury members are "performing their duty" as jurors. I can just image someone trying to sell their "story" to a disreputable publisher (tabloids) by reporting to the publisher, during a major trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming they are talking about banning their use * during * trials , e.g .
when the jurors are actually in the jury box or deliberating outside the courtroom .
It seems a bit ridiculous to ban use of the devices when jurors are on their own time , outside the trial , at home , commuting , etc .
In fact here in Finland it would be against the law to do so since access to the internet has recently been granted a right to all citizens.I totally agree that such devices should not be allowed during the actual trial or when jury members are " performing their duty " as jurors .
I can just image someone trying to sell their " story " to a disreputable publisher ( tabloids ) by reporting to the publisher , during a major trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming they are talking about banning their use *during* trials, e.g.
when the jurors are actually in the jury box or deliberating outside the courtroom.
It seems a bit ridiculous to ban use of the devices when jurors are on their own time, outside the trial, at home, commuting, etc.
In fact here in Finland it would be against the law to do so since access to the internet has recently been granted a right to all citizens.I totally agree that such devices should not be allowed during the actual trial or when jury members are "performing their duty" as jurors.
I can just image someone trying to sell their "story" to a disreputable publisher (tabloids) by reporting to the publisher, during a major trial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008594</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264946340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think we'll see an uptick in creative jury-avoidance strategies. I'm going to start working on mine right now!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Then you will go to prison if they catch you, and I, for one, hope they do.
<br>
Only an utter arsehole would want to undermine the jury system on the basis that it's a little bit inconvenient because you can't get your daily lolcats fix.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 'll see an uptick in creative jury-avoidance strategies .
I 'm going to start working on mine right now !
Then you will go to prison if they catch you , and I , for one , hope they do .
Only an utter arsehole would want to undermine the jury system on the basis that it 's a little bit inconvenient because you ca n't get your daily lolcats fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we'll see an uptick in creative jury-avoidance strategies.
I'm going to start working on mine right now!
Then you will go to prison if they catch you, and I, for one, hope they do.
Only an utter arsehole would want to undermine the jury system on the basis that it's a little bit inconvenient because you can't get your daily lolcats fix.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014414</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1264930260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding fact</p></div><p>A artificial construct that attempts to increase the power of government at the expense of the people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding factA artificial construct that attempts to increase the power of government at the expense of the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding factA artificial construct that attempts to increase the power of government at the expense of the people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006790</id>
	<title>No TV, No Web, No Slashdot, No Newspaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...what's next, a ban on pizza and yanking off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...what 's next , a ban on pizza and yanking off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what's next, a ban on pizza and yanking off?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009924</id>
	<title>12 REALLY angry men</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be the movie "Twelve REALLY Angy Men".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the movie " Twelve REALLY Angy Men " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the movie "Twelve REALLY Angy Men".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198</id>
	<title>Fine fine fine.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1264929600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering, not to mention people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!</p><p>I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though. This isn't *suppose* to have any influence at all I am sure, but what if more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors? Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering , not to mention people thinking I 'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs ! I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though .
This is n't * suppose * to have any influence at all I am sure , but what if more people who do n't use the internet end up being jurors ?
Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering, not to mention people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though.
This isn't *suppose* to have any influence at all I am sure, but what if more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors?
Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010394</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.</p></div><p>Yeah, how could you compare them to the legal skills of Ask Slashdot!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.Yeah , how could you compare them to the legal skills of Ask Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.Yeah, how could you compare them to the legal skills of Ask Slashdot!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.<br></i></p><p>Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically , those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials , search the internet , websites , blogs , or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial , during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.Okay , maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense , but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all .
How in the world is a " normal " person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they are n't even allowed to research what is being said ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all.
How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008048</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raises hand in court. "I have a question. I was surfing the web on my phone last night, googling the defendent's name..."</p><p>Would that be good enough to get kicked out of the jury during the middle of the trial?</p><p>Oh, and don't forget those sites that you can pay for background information about people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raises hand in court .
" I have a question .
I was surfing the web on my phone last night , googling the defendent 's name... " Would that be good enough to get kicked out of the jury during the middle of the trial ? Oh , and do n't forget those sites that you can pay for background information about people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raises hand in court.
"I have a question.
I was surfing the web on my phone last night, googling the defendent's name..."Would that be good enough to get kicked out of the jury during the middle of the trial?Oh, and don't forget those sites that you can pay for background information about people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014364</id>
	<title>Re:Advice for Jurors</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1264930080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. If it's a civil case, the defendant is really an insurance company, but you'll be told the defendant is Joe Average.  Award the plaintiff lots of money!  I'd do the same for you.  Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket.</p></div><p>You haven't a clue how insurance works, do you?  Have you ever looked at the historical records and seen that the stock for insurance goes up AFTER natural disasters?  Maybe you should stop and realize that insurance companies don't grow money.  The collect it, and then keep just a percentage for themselves.  Joe will pay out of pocket (eventually).  So will you, and so will I.  If Joe is not at fault, why should his insurance company pay anything to someone that doesn't deserve it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
If it 's a civil case , the defendant is really an insurance company , but you 'll be told the defendant is Joe Average .
Award the plaintiff lots of money !
I 'd do the same for you .
Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket.You have n't a clue how insurance works , do you ?
Have you ever looked at the historical records and seen that the stock for insurance goes up AFTER natural disasters ?
Maybe you should stop and realize that insurance companies do n't grow money .
The collect it , and then keep just a percentage for themselves .
Joe will pay out of pocket ( eventually ) .
So will you , and so will I. If Joe is not at fault , why should his insurance company pay anything to someone that does n't deserve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
If it's a civil case, the defendant is really an insurance company, but you'll be told the defendant is Joe Average.
Award the plaintiff lots of money!
I'd do the same for you.
Joe will never have to pay a dime out-of-pocket.You haven't a clue how insurance works, do you?
Have you ever looked at the historical records and seen that the stock for insurance goes up AFTER natural disasters?
Maybe you should stop and realize that insurance companies don't grow money.
The collect it, and then keep just a percentage for themselves.
Joe will pay out of pocket (eventually).
So will you, and so will I.  If Joe is not at fault, why should his insurance company pay anything to someone that doesn't deserve it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009376</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264951680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>An utter arsehole, or someone who thinks that they don't compensate jurors enough for their time already (I should be paid *more* to do jury duty than I am at work, not less) and so doesn't feel the need to support a broken system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An utter arsehole , or someone who thinks that they do n't compensate jurors enough for their time already ( I should be paid * more * to do jury duty than I am at work , not less ) and so does n't feel the need to support a broken system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An utter arsehole, or someone who thinks that they don't compensate jurors enough for their time already (I should be paid *more* to do jury duty than I am at work, not less) and so doesn't feel the need to support a broken system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007810</id>
	<title>Multi-day trials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately there'd be no way of enforcing these rules between days in trials. There have already been cases in the UK of jurors reaching verdicts on the basis of subjective internet comments about the accused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately there 'd be no way of enforcing these rules between days in trials .
There have already been cases in the UK of jurors reaching verdicts on the basis of subjective internet comments about the accused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately there'd be no way of enforcing these rules between days in trials.
There have already been cases in the UK of jurors reaching verdicts on the basis of subjective internet comments about the accused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007262</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>aussie\_a</author>
	<datestamp>1264930200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is akin to saying "Juries shouldn't use the telephone or read a newspaper." In fact some of the restrictions are just that (the iPhone is a telephone).</p><p>Are these restrictions arbitrarily selecting modern communication methods? Or are these in addition to banning the use of landline telephones and newspapers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is akin to saying " Juries should n't use the telephone or read a newspaper .
" In fact some of the restrictions are just that ( the iPhone is a telephone ) .Are these restrictions arbitrarily selecting modern communication methods ?
Or are these in addition to banning the use of landline telephones and newspapers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is akin to saying "Juries shouldn't use the telephone or read a newspaper.
" In fact some of the restrictions are just that (the iPhone is a telephone).Are these restrictions arbitrarily selecting modern communication methods?
Or are these in addition to banning the use of landline telephones and newspapers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008738</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1264947660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc.  But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation.  They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...</p></div><p>
All that the committee is saying is that jurors can't use electronic media in the court house and can not use electronic media to research or discuss the case outside the courtroom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks , etc .
But I ca n't see how it 's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation .
They can " instruct " the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial , but that 's not going to stop too many people.. . All that the committee is saying is that jurors ca n't use electronic media in the court house and can not use electronic media to research or discuss the case outside the courtroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc.
But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation.
They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...
All that the committee is saying is that jurors can't use electronic media in the court house and can not use electronic media to research or discuss the case outside the courtroom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31018862</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, another good reason to do whatever necessary to get out of jury duty.</p><p>You cannot ask people to abandon their lives and imperil their incomes (self-employed and internet-based?) Without reasonable compensation.</p><p>I do not know what the answer is, but effectively punishing people who show up for jury duty ain't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , another good reason to do whatever necessary to get out of jury duty.You can not ask people to abandon their lives and imperil their incomes ( self-employed and internet-based ?
) Without reasonable compensation.I do not know what the answer is , but effectively punishing people who show up for jury duty ai n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, another good reason to do whatever necessary to get out of jury duty.You cannot ask people to abandon their lives and imperil their incomes (self-employed and internet-based?
) Without reasonable compensation.I do not know what the answer is, but effectively punishing people who show up for jury duty ain't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</id>
	<title>Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get the issue of sequestering a jury, but now, they're asking people to do without some pretty deeply ingrained habits.  And for days, weeks at a time?  I think we'll see an uptick in creative jury-avoidance strategies.  I'm going to start working on mine right now!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the issue of sequestering a jury , but now , they 're asking people to do without some pretty deeply ingrained habits .
And for days , weeks at a time ?
I think we 'll see an uptick in creative jury-avoidance strategies .
I 'm going to start working on mine right now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the issue of sequestering a jury, but now, they're asking people to do without some pretty deeply ingrained habits.
And for days, weeks at a time?
I think we'll see an uptick in creative jury-avoidance strategies.
I'm going to start working on mine right now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007762</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1264936260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.</p><p>"Overrated" was a chickenshit move.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
" Overrated " was a chickenshit move.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
"Overrated" was a chickenshit move.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007226</id>
	<title>Just another reason to dodge Jury Duty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264929780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder they get completely crap juries.  $5 a day and completely cut off from the world?</p><p>Does it surprise anyone that 99.5\% of the best and brightest are going to do their darndest to get out of it?</p><p>(The 0.5 remaining could be split up into 0.1 (the scrupulously dutiful), 0.3 (those with agendas to push), 0.2 (those who believe they can actually get away with jury nullification).</p><p>S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder they get completely crap juries .
$ 5 a day and completely cut off from the world ? Does it surprise anyone that 99.5 \ % of the best and brightest are going to do their darndest to get out of it ?
( The 0.5 remaining could be split up into 0.1 ( the scrupulously dutiful ) , 0.3 ( those with agendas to push ) , 0.2 ( those who believe they can actually get away with jury nullification ) .S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder they get completely crap juries.
$5 a day and completely cut off from the world?Does it surprise anyone that 99.5\% of the best and brightest are going to do their darndest to get out of it?
(The 0.5 remaining could be split up into 0.1 (the scrupulously dutiful), 0.3 (those with agendas to push), 0.2 (those who believe they can actually get away with jury nullification).S.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007172</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1264929360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, you tell them. I love masturbating and if I had to stop for days or even weeks because I was on a jury, I'd probably shoot up the place...wait, what ingrained habits were you referring to again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , you tell them .
I love masturbating and if I had to stop for days or even weeks because I was on a jury , I 'd probably shoot up the place...wait , what ingrained habits were you referring to again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, you tell them.
I love masturbating and if I had to stop for days or even weeks because I was on a jury, I'd probably shoot up the place...wait, what ingrained habits were you referring to again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008756</id>
	<title>What if those jurors look it up</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1264947780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on Slashdot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006858</id>
	<title>Re:No TV, No Web, No Slashdot, No Newspaper</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1264969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just be effective and quickly agree to either guilty or innocent.</p><p>And if you are for jury duty there is as far as I know no demand that you do take a shower or change clothes. So if the process is prolonged too much you will have one stinking jury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just be effective and quickly agree to either guilty or innocent.And if you are for jury duty there is as far as I know no demand that you do take a shower or change clothes .
So if the process is prolonged too much you will have one stinking jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just be effective and quickly agree to either guilty or innocent.And if you are for jury duty there is as far as I know no demand that you do take a shower or change clothes.
So if the process is prolonged too much you will have one stinking jury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006950</id>
	<title>Law is all about not finding out the truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as you're not allowed to record/tape an interview that lawyers hold with their clients (out of fear the truth may get out), you shouldn't be allowed to research all those lies from the lawyers in court either...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as you 're not allowed to record/tape an interview that lawyers hold with their clients ( out of fear the truth may get out ) , you should n't be allowed to research all those lies from the lawyers in court either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as you're not allowed to record/tape an interview that lawyers hold with their clients (out of fear the truth may get out), you shouldn't be allowed to research all those lies from the lawyers in court either...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007050</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1264971420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc. But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation. They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...</p></div><p>The rules aren't any different than the current rules for jurors.  You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it.  This is just updating the rules for the 21st century.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks , etc .
But I ca n't see how it 's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation .
They can " instruct " the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial , but that 's not going to stop too many people...The rules are n't any different than the current rules for jurors .
You 're not allowed to discuss the case , and refrain from news about it .
This is just updating the rules for the 21st century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be about recommending that ALL jurors refrain from accessing these social networks, etc.
But I can't see how it's practical outside of the courtroom or deliberation.
They can "instruct" the jurors all they want not to go online for the length of the trial, but that's not going to stop too many people...The rules aren't any different than the current rules for jurors.
You're not allowed to discuss the case, and refrain from news about it.
This is just updating the rules for the 21st century.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020440</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265283480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I knew a witness personally before the trial</p></div></blockquote><p>In most jurisdictions, you'd never have been seated on the jury in the first place.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions, I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, yes.  You are.  Your decision in the jury room is supposed to be based solely on what was presented in the courtroom, where both sides have had a chance to examine and rebut what was presented.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>And yes, I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant's current trial, but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up, that sure as heck is significant.</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words, you prefer prejudice over fairness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I knew a witness personally before the trialIn most jurisdictions , you 'd never have been seated on the jury in the first place .
  Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions , I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony.Actually , yes .
You are .
Your decision in the jury room is supposed to be based solely on what was presented in the courtroom , where both sides have had a chance to examine and rebut what was presented .
  And yes , I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant 's current trial , but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up , that sure as heck is significant.In other words , you prefer prejudice over fairness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I knew a witness personally before the trialIn most jurisdictions, you'd never have been seated on the jury in the first place.
  Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions, I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony.Actually, yes.
You are.
Your decision in the jury room is supposed to be based solely on what was presented in the courtroom, where both sides have had a chance to examine and rebut what was presented.
  And yes, I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant's current trial, but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up, that sure as heck is significant.In other words, you prefer prejudice over fairness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006940</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>iphinome</author>
	<datestamp>1264970400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's practical because the vast majority of trials take a day or two. It would be like 20 years ago telling someone they couldn't watch tv for 2 days, for most it wouldn't have been fun but a day or two of boredom isn't the end of the world and they did have nintendo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's practical because the vast majority of trials take a day or two .
It would be like 20 years ago telling someone they could n't watch tv for 2 days , for most it would n't have been fun but a day or two of boredom is n't the end of the world and they did have nintendo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's practical because the vast majority of trials take a day or two.
It would be like 20 years ago telling someone they couldn't watch tv for 2 days, for most it wouldn't have been fun but a day or two of boredom isn't the end of the world and they did have nintendo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31023546</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265304900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how the hell is the judge going to know if you "watch the evening news, read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other"? Are you stupid enough to tell the judge what you did during the day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how the hell is the judge going to know if you " watch the evening news , read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other " ?
Are you stupid enough to tell the judge what you did during the day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how the hell is the judge going to know if you "watch the evening news, read the days newspaper,just surf the internet or discuss with your significant other"?
Are you stupid enough to tell the judge what you did during the day?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011744</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1264961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, fortunately or unfortunately, merely being an academic of any sort (prof, researcher, postdoc, grad student, etc.) seems to be enough to get you excluded. I guess nobody wants eggheads on juries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , fortunately or unfortunately , merely being an academic of any sort ( prof , researcher , postdoc , grad student , etc .
) seems to be enough to get you excluded .
I guess nobody wants eggheads on juries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, fortunately or unfortunately, merely being an academic of any sort (prof, researcher, postdoc, grad student, etc.
) seems to be enough to get you excluded.
I guess nobody wants eggheads on juries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009996</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending</title>
	<author>malchus842</author>
	<datestamp>1264954260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  If by some nearly impossible set of circumstances they allowed me to sit on a jury for a trial that revolved around computers (e.g. log files, ip tracing, etc), you can be darn sure I'm going to try to explain to the jurors what's either right or wrong with what each side said.  Of course, if the attorney for one side or the other is afraid of this, they'll find a way to get rid of me in <i>voir dire</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
If by some nearly impossible set of circumstances they allowed me to sit on a jury for a trial that revolved around computers ( e.g .
log files , ip tracing , etc ) , you can be darn sure I 'm going to try to explain to the jurors what 's either right or wrong with what each side said .
Of course , if the attorney for one side or the other is afraid of this , they 'll find a way to get rid of me in voir dire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
If by some nearly impossible set of circumstances they allowed me to sit on a jury for a trial that revolved around computers (e.g.
log files, ip tracing, etc), you can be darn sure I'm going to try to explain to the jurors what's either right or wrong with what each side said.
Of course, if the attorney for one side or the other is afraid of this, they'll find a way to get rid of me in voir dire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011780</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1264961280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no problem serving on a jury, even for an extended period of time. But I should be allowed to read my email and make some attempt at keeping up my affairs in the evenings, when not attending court. If the jury is so untrustworthy that you don't think it's possible for them to be impartial without being held incommunicado against their will, the institution has a fundamental problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem serving on a jury , even for an extended period of time .
But I should be allowed to read my email and make some attempt at keeping up my affairs in the evenings , when not attending court .
If the jury is so untrustworthy that you do n't think it 's possible for them to be impartial without being held incommunicado against their will , the institution has a fundamental problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem serving on a jury, even for an extended period of time.
But I should be allowed to read my email and make some attempt at keeping up my affairs in the evenings, when not attending court.
If the jury is so untrustworthy that you don't think it's possible for them to be impartial without being held incommunicado against their will, the institution has a fundamental problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008578</id>
	<title>Daily dose of Obama hypocrisy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people."<br>-Barack Hussein Obama, 2010 State of the Union address</p><p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in\_a\_shift\_obama\_rejects\_public\_funding/" title="boston.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in\_a\_shift\_obama\_rejects\_public\_funding/</a> [boston.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't think American elections should be bankrolled by America 's most powerful interests , or worse , by foreign entities .
They should be decided by the American people .
" -Barack Hussein Obama , 2010 State of the Union addresshttp : //www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in \ _a \ _shift \ _obama \ _rejects \ _public \ _funding/ [ boston.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
They should be decided by the American people.
"-Barack Hussein Obama, 2010 State of the Union addresshttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in\_a\_shift\_obama\_rejects\_public\_funding/ [boston.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007818</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the dispute</i><br>What I don't get is if you are going to reduce juries actions to an essentially mechanical processes what is the point of having a jury in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>complete control of the jury 's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the disputeWhat I do n't get is if you are going to reduce juries actions to an essentially mechanical processes what is the point of having a jury in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>complete control of the jury's information feed will give the best and most consistent results for any party to the disputeWhat I don't get is if you are going to reduce juries actions to an essentially mechanical processes what is the point of having a jury in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009776</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the 21st Century!</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1264953420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then they'd have to call it "12 Horny Men," a misleading title that would only attract a specific demographic, who would then be disappointed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they 'd have to call it " 12 Horny Men , " a misleading title that would only attract a specific demographic , who would then be disappointed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they'd have to call it "12 Horny Men," a misleading title that would only attract a specific demographic, who would then be disappointed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008618</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264946640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Fuck it, let's just abolish the jury system entirely, since all it does is get in the way of my TV watching.
<br>
Obviously anyone in court is guilty or they wouldn't be there, so let's just let the judge decide on the sentence and stop all that time-wasting with so-called "evidence" and the frankly tedious process of allowing a "defence".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime .
Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls .
Fuck it , let 's just abolish the jury system entirely , since all it does is get in the way of my TV watching .
Obviously anyone in court is guilty or they would n't be there , so let 's just let the judge decide on the sentence and stop all that time-wasting with so-called " evidence " and the frankly tedious process of allowing a " defence " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime.
Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.
Fuck it, let's just abolish the jury system entirely, since all it does is get in the way of my TV watching.
Obviously anyone in court is guilty or they wouldn't be there, so let's just let the judge decide on the sentence and stop all that time-wasting with so-called "evidence" and the frankly tedious process of allowing a "defence".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006856</id>
	<title>Uninformed Jury</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we accept the mind control brainwashing by the powers that be that an IGNORANT and UNINFORMED jury is a good jury? It's only a good jury from the point of view of the system and the prosecution where they control the information flow and where the judge denies informing the jury of their right to nullify the trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we accept the mind control brainwashing by the powers that be that an IGNORANT and UNINFORMED jury is a good jury ?
It 's only a good jury from the point of view of the system and the prosecution where they control the information flow and where the judge denies informing the jury of their right to nullify the trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we accept the mind control brainwashing by the powers that be that an IGNORANT and UNINFORMED jury is a good jury?
It's only a good jury from the point of view of the system and the prosecution where they control the information flow and where the judge denies informing the jury of their right to nullify the trial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008568</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1264946040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness's past history, but even then I don't think so. If I knew a witness personally before the trial, knew he had a history of lying, knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him, whatever kind of influence you can think of, that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false</p></div></blockquote><p>

If you knew a witness personally, any competent lawyer would have you rejected from the juror pool for that trial.  If the relationship isn't known to counsel beforehand, or not brought up during jury selection, you have a moral obligation to recuse yourself as soon as that witness comes up.  There are alternate jurors empaneled for just this kind of occasion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness 's past history , but even then I do n't think so .
If I knew a witness personally before the trial , knew he had a history of lying , knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him , whatever kind of influence you can think of , that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false If you knew a witness personally , any competent lawyer would have you rejected from the juror pool for that trial .
If the relationship is n't known to counsel beforehand , or not brought up during jury selection , you have a moral obligation to recuse yourself as soon as that witness comes up .
There are alternate jurors empaneled for just this kind of occasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness's past history, but even then I don't think so.
If I knew a witness personally before the trial, knew he had a history of lying, knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him, whatever kind of influence you can think of, that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false

If you knew a witness personally, any competent lawyer would have you rejected from the juror pool for that trial.
If the relationship isn't known to counsel beforehand, or not brought up during jury selection, you have a moral obligation to recuse yourself as soon as that witness comes up.
There are alternate jurors empaneled for just this kind of occasion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007844</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It makes perfect sense to me"</p><p>What's the point of a jury when the jurors are not allowed to think for themselves? Just makes it more of a theatre in which the lawyer with the most obfuscated lies wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It makes perfect sense to me " What 's the point of a jury when the jurors are not allowed to think for themselves ?
Just makes it more of a theatre in which the lawyer with the most obfuscated lies wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It makes perfect sense to me"What's the point of a jury when the jurors are not allowed to think for themselves?
Just makes it more of a theatre in which the lawyer with the most obfuscated lies wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007404</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264931880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't see how this is anything new - Judge's get *pissed* if you're not paying attention during the trial, and at least here in NZ they've always made you hand in your cell phones etc. when you go out at the end for deliberations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't see how this is anything new - Judge 's get * pissed * if you 're not paying attention during the trial , and at least here in NZ they 've always made you hand in your cell phones etc .
when you go out at the end for deliberations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't see how this is anything new - Judge's get *pissed* if you're not paying attention during the trial, and at least here in NZ they've always made you hand in your cell phones etc.
when you go out at the end for deliberations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010446</id>
	<title>They need to pay a lot more and have free food, pa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need to pay a lot more and have free food, parking , pay for train / bus fair / cabs.</p><p>also I don't think you can get fired if you are on a trial so make it so even if you are a contractor they can not void contract or say no to a renew of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to pay a lot more and have free food , parking , pay for train / bus fair / cabs.also I do n't think you can get fired if you are on a trial so make it so even if you are a contractor they can not void contract or say no to a renew of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to pay a lot more and have free food, parking , pay for train / bus fair / cabs.also I don't think you can get fired if you are on a trial so make it so even if you are a contractor they can not void contract or say no to a renew of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009748</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.</p></div><p>Watch out, refusing to serve jury duty is punishable by jail time, which is suspect isn't as much fun as serving on a jury<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Best way to avoid being selected for a jury is to serve on one that convicts someone and selects a harsh sentence.  If you achieve this you will forever be on the defense attorney's free strike list.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime .
Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.Watch out , refusing to serve jury duty is punishable by jail time , which is suspect is n't as much fun as serving on a jury : - ) Best way to avoid being selected for a jury is to serve on one that convicts someone and selects a harsh sentence .
If you achieve this you will forever be on the defense attorney 's free strike list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime.
Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.Watch out, refusing to serve jury duty is punishable by jail time, which is suspect isn't as much fun as serving on a jury :-)Best way to avoid being selected for a jury is to serve on one that convicts someone and selects a harsh sentence.
If you achieve this you will forever be on the defense attorney's free strike list.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008436</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>cbeaudry</author>
	<datestamp>1264944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about, we live in 2010.</p><p>The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.<br>Allowing that person to read a dictionary, research terms, definitions, subjects, etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.</p><p>Throwing them in there blind is the stoopidest shit every. Its about the theater of the court room, and a person can be thrown in jail because of the incompetence of the defense or the other way around (someone can walk because the prosecution was incompetent).</p><p>If the jury is supposed to be the decider, then allow them to decide.</p><p>Again, we are in 2010, time to stop this fucking gaming of this system bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about , we live in 2010.The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.Allowing that person to read a dictionary , research terms , definitions , subjects , etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.Throwing them in there blind is the stoopidest shit every .
Its about the theater of the court room , and a person can be thrown in jail because of the incompetence of the defense or the other way around ( someone can walk because the prosecution was incompetent ) .If the jury is supposed to be the decider , then allow them to decide.Again , we are in 2010 , time to stop this fucking gaming of this system bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about, we live in 2010.The average Joe is 10 times more educated than 300 years ago and will use that education when forming his opinion.Allowing that person to read a dictionary, research terms, definitions, subjects, etc... allows for a TRUE jury of his peers.Throwing them in there blind is the stoopidest shit every.
Its about the theater of the court room, and a person can be thrown in jail because of the incompetence of the defense or the other way around (someone can walk because the prosecution was incompetent).If the jury is supposed to be the decider, then allow them to decide.Again, we are in 2010, time to stop this fucking gaming of this system bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007694</id>
	<title>Re:Fine fine fine.</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264935420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Serving as a juror is a responsibility as a US citizen, and whatever you get paid for doing so is an honorarium, not a salary. Payments for pain and suffering, on the other hand, are generally settlements for tort liabilites, and the honorarium you receive for completing jury duty is not compensation for completing jury duty. It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer (such as lunch and parking) become a net cost of 0.</p><p>News flash - you don't get paid for voting either.</p><p>If more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors, I assume it will either have no effect or would improve the ability of jurors to listen to the facts of individual cases, as they are supposed to be doing in determining their verdicts. One of the main purposes of a jury is so that outside influences (such as newspapers, television, and internet) are not influential. It would be more like only people who have not determined their personal stance on the death penalty being allowed on a capital case. If only pro death-penalty (your idea is just stupid) people were allowed on a capital case, the defending lawyer would simply be getting a free shot at getting his client off, because a death verdict would be thrown out pretty much automatically on appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Serving as a juror is a responsibility as a US citizen , and whatever you get paid for doing so is an honorarium , not a salary .
Payments for pain and suffering , on the other hand , are generally settlements for tort liabilites , and the honorarium you receive for completing jury duty is not compensation for completing jury duty .
It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer ( such as lunch and parking ) become a net cost of 0.News flash - you do n't get paid for voting either.If more people who do n't use the internet end up being jurors , I assume it will either have no effect or would improve the ability of jurors to listen to the facts of individual cases , as they are supposed to be doing in determining their verdicts .
One of the main purposes of a jury is so that outside influences ( such as newspapers , television , and internet ) are not influential .
It would be more like only people who have not determined their personal stance on the death penalty being allowed on a capital case .
If only pro death-penalty ( your idea is just stupid ) people were allowed on a capital case , the defending lawyer would simply be getting a free shot at getting his client off , because a death verdict would be thrown out pretty much automatically on appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Serving as a juror is a responsibility as a US citizen, and whatever you get paid for doing so is an honorarium, not a salary.
Payments for pain and suffering, on the other hand, are generally settlements for tort liabilites, and the honorarium you receive for completing jury duty is not compensation for completing jury duty.
It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer (such as lunch and parking) become a net cost of 0.News flash - you don't get paid for voting either.If more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors, I assume it will either have no effect or would improve the ability of jurors to listen to the facts of individual cases, as they are supposed to be doing in determining their verdicts.
One of the main purposes of a jury is so that outside influences (such as newspapers, television, and internet) are not influential.
It would be more like only people who have not determined their personal stance on the death penalty being allowed on a capital case.
If only pro death-penalty (your idea is just stupid) people were allowed on a capital case, the defending lawyer would simply be getting a free shot at getting his client off, because a death verdict would be thrown out pretty much automatically on appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006996</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>taucross</author>
	<datestamp>1264971000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the less informed a jury is, the more they are susceptible to the emotive speeches from lawyers. You know, the guys who profit from law. Laws like these. I can see it like this:<br> <br> <strong>Defense counsel to expert witness: </strong> Sir, is it not true that the substance my client is accused of exploding is in fact <em>inflammable</em>?<br> <strong>Expert witness:</strong> Why yes, of course.<br> <br>Later in the jury room...<br> <br> <strong>Uninformed juror with no access to news sites, blogs or information on what happened:</strong> Y'all heard that there witness! That dang see-faw-whatsit can't be blown up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the less informed a jury is , the more they are susceptible to the emotive speeches from lawyers .
You know , the guys who profit from law .
Laws like these .
I can see it like this : Defense counsel to expert witness : Sir , is it not true that the substance my client is accused of exploding is in fact inflammable ?
Expert witness : Why yes , of course .
Later in the jury room... Uninformed juror with no access to news sites , blogs or information on what happened : Y'all heard that there witness !
That dang see-faw-whatsit ca n't be blown up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the less informed a jury is, the more they are susceptible to the emotive speeches from lawyers.
You know, the guys who profit from law.
Laws like these.
I can see it like this:  Defense counsel to expert witness:  Sir, is it not true that the substance my client is accused of exploding is in fact inflammable?
Expert witness: Why yes, of course.
Later in the jury room...  Uninformed juror with no access to news sites, blogs or information on what happened: Y'all heard that there witness!
That dang see-faw-whatsit can't be blown up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008836</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1264948320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I heard, at least here in the US, a jury is a group of 12, so unless all of your personalities qualified as the jury, you won't be in solitary...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I heard , at least here in the US , a jury is a group of 12 , so unless all of your personalities qualified as the jury , you wo n't be in solitary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I heard, at least here in the US, a jury is a group of 12, so unless all of your personalities qualified as the jury, you won't be in solitary...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</id>
	<title>Pathetically ignorant and condescending</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding fact, but forget that for a moment.</p><p>Jurors are presumably supposed to use their judgment to decide the facts -- are the witnesses trustworthy, is their testimony full of inconsistencies, how do different witness's testimonies stack up against each other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>But all this REQUIRES that jurors use their own knowledge to some extent.  If a witness says something that is obviously wrong to a car mechanic but not an ice cream clerk, that mechanic darned well better tell the other jurors why he thinks the witness is lying.  Jurors are expected to NOT drop their real-world knowledge at the door.  (I am particularly thinking of My Cousin Vinny, where only a car fanatic would know vital clues about the tire tracks and what kind of car could have made them.)</p><p>Now how is this different from a juror who knows just enough to be wary of something and looks it up (NOT during the trial, but at home, or even during deliberations)?  It's all fine and dandy to say that is up to the opposing lawyer to handle, that jurors are not police or investigators, but that is word games.  If I knew something before the trial, I am expected to use that knowledge to uncover bad testimony.  But if I acquire that knowledge during the trial, I am supposed to pretend I don't know that a witness is lying?</p><p>Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness's past history, but even then I don't think so.  If I knew a witness personally before the trial, knew he had a history of lying, knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him, whatever kind of influence you can think of, that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false.  Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions, I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony.  And yes, I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant's current trial, but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up, that sure as heck is significant.</p><p>This all stems from olden times when jurors had no way of looking things up, and very little need.  But the world is more complicated now, people know more and get around more, and I'd rather be tried by jurors who knew how to look up things for themselves rather than sit around like stupified monkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding fact , but forget that for a moment.Jurors are presumably supposed to use their judgment to decide the facts -- are the witnesses trustworthy , is their testimony full of inconsistencies , how do different witness 's testimonies stack up against each other ...But all this REQUIRES that jurors use their own knowledge to some extent .
If a witness says something that is obviously wrong to a car mechanic but not an ice cream clerk , that mechanic darned well better tell the other jurors why he thinks the witness is lying .
Jurors are expected to NOT drop their real-world knowledge at the door .
( I am particularly thinking of My Cousin Vinny , where only a car fanatic would know vital clues about the tire tracks and what kind of car could have made them .
) Now how is this different from a juror who knows just enough to be wary of something and looks it up ( NOT during the trial , but at home , or even during deliberations ) ?
It 's all fine and dandy to say that is up to the opposing lawyer to handle , that jurors are not police or investigators , but that is word games .
If I knew something before the trial , I am expected to use that knowledge to uncover bad testimony .
But if I acquire that knowledge during the trial , I am supposed to pretend I do n't know that a witness is lying ? Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness 's past history , but even then I do n't think so .
If I knew a witness personally before the trial , knew he had a history of lying , knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him , whatever kind of influence you can think of , that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false .
Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions , I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony .
And yes , I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant 's current trial , but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up , that sure as heck is significant.This all stems from olden times when jurors had no way of looking things up , and very little need .
But the world is more complicated now , people know more and get around more , and I 'd rather be tried by jurors who knew how to look up things for themselves rather than sit around like stupified monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know about the artificial separation of judges deciding law and jurors deciding fact, but forget that for a moment.Jurors are presumably supposed to use their judgment to decide the facts -- are the witnesses trustworthy, is their testimony full of inconsistencies, how do different witness's testimonies stack up against each other ...But all this REQUIRES that jurors use their own knowledge to some extent.
If a witness says something that is obviously wrong to a car mechanic but not an ice cream clerk, that mechanic darned well better tell the other jurors why he thinks the witness is lying.
Jurors are expected to NOT drop their real-world knowledge at the door.
(I am particularly thinking of My Cousin Vinny, where only a car fanatic would know vital clues about the tire tracks and what kind of car could have made them.
)Now how is this different from a juror who knows just enough to be wary of something and looks it up (NOT during the trial, but at home, or even during deliberations)?
It's all fine and dandy to say that is up to the opposing lawyer to handle, that jurors are not police or investigators, but that is word games.
If I knew something before the trial, I am expected to use that knowledge to uncover bad testimony.
But if I acquire that knowledge during the trial, I am supposed to pretend I don't know that a witness is lying?Maybe a case can be made for looking up a witness's past history, but even then I don't think so.
If I knew a witness personally before the trial, knew he had a history of lying, knew he hated the defendant or was jealous of him or was in love with him, whatever kind of influence you can think of, that is part of my knowledge and part of how I decide what is true and what is false.
Even if the only reputation they have is from always appearing in newspapers under unsavory conditions, I am not expected to forget all that when evaluating their testimony.
And yes, I am ignoring the idea that prior criminal history is not supposed to be part of a defendant's current trial, but I also think that is bunk -- if some guy has been to jail a half dozen times for beating people up, that sure as heck is significant.This all stems from olden times when jurors had no way of looking things up, and very little need.
But the world is more complicated now, people know more and get around more, and I'd rather be tried by jurors who knew how to look up things for themselves rather than sit around like stupified monkeys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246</id>
	<title>Welcome to the 21st Century!</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1264930080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they remake the movie "12 Angry Men" (like everything else these days), the story  will be about 12 angry men who are kept locked up in a jury room with no access to their online porn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they remake the movie " 12 Angry Men " ( like everything else these days ) , the story will be about 12 angry men who are kept locked up in a jury room with no access to their online porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they remake the movie "12 Angry Men" (like everything else these days), the story  will be about 12 angry men who are kept locked up in a jury room with no access to their online porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007772</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could just act like a complete nutcase, I suppose. They should think twice before giving jury duty to a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society or 9/11 truthers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could just act like a complete nutcase , I suppose .
They should think twice before giving jury duty to a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society or 9/11 truthers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could just act like a complete nutcase, I suppose.
They should think twice before giving jury duty to a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society or 9/11 truthers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009432</id>
	<title>Not in the US...</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1264952040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax" title="wikipedia.org">Supermax</a> [wikipedia.org] prisons in the US.  The European Court of Human Rights barely allowed less restrictive conditions to be used for the Jackall (Big terrorist honcho from the 70s); Supermax prisons are effectively permanent solitary.  Which does horrible things to the brain--effectively, it's torture by omission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the Supermax [ wikipedia.org ] prisons in the US .
The European Court of Human Rights barely allowed less restrictive conditions to be used for the Jackall ( Big terrorist honcho from the 70s ) ; Supermax prisons are effectively permanent solitary .
Which does horrible things to the brain--effectively , it 's torture by omission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the Supermax [wikipedia.org] prisons in the US.
The European Court of Human Rights barely allowed less restrictive conditions to be used for the Jackall (Big terrorist honcho from the 70s); Supermax prisons are effectively permanent solitary.
Which does horrible things to the brain--effectively, it's torture by omission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006958</id>
	<title>Jail the Jury</title>
	<author>chaosdivine69</author>
	<datestamp>1264970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well this is getting kind of out of hand. Why not just throw the jury in jail too? I mean you're taking away their freedoms already so why not do it right? At least in the end the jury gets out of jail...

It would be good if the jury COULD use technology (email) but only on computers sanctioned and controlled (monitored) by the judicial service. That means "highly filtered" and/or reviewed by approved moderators of the court. If you are found breaking the rules, slap their pee pee's and throw them in jail too. At least jurors would be warned.

What if I was on the jury of a long trial and I had to pay my bills online and no longer got my bill stubs the "paper way" but rather through email? Sorry - collection service for you...credit rating hell. How dumb is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well this is getting kind of out of hand .
Why not just throw the jury in jail too ?
I mean you 're taking away their freedoms already so why not do it right ?
At least in the end the jury gets out of jail.. . It would be good if the jury COULD use technology ( email ) but only on computers sanctioned and controlled ( monitored ) by the judicial service .
That means " highly filtered " and/or reviewed by approved moderators of the court .
If you are found breaking the rules , slap their pee pee 's and throw them in jail too .
At least jurors would be warned .
What if I was on the jury of a long trial and I had to pay my bills online and no longer got my bill stubs the " paper way " but rather through email ?
Sorry - collection service for you...credit rating hell .
How dumb is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well this is getting kind of out of hand.
Why not just throw the jury in jail too?
I mean you're taking away their freedoms already so why not do it right?
At least in the end the jury gets out of jail...

It would be good if the jury COULD use technology (email) but only on computers sanctioned and controlled (monitored) by the judicial service.
That means "highly filtered" and/or reviewed by approved moderators of the court.
If you are found breaking the rules, slap their pee pee's and throw them in jail too.
At least jurors would be warned.
What if I was on the jury of a long trial and I had to pay my bills online and no longer got my bill stubs the "paper way" but rather through email?
Sorry - collection service for you...credit rating hell.
How dumb is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31016782</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1264941540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here in Western Australia, the courts "ask" you to surrender your phone. Doesn't even matter if it doesn't have a camera.</p></div><p>Similar here in Queensland... my fiancee went through jury duty for a civil case last year and jurors were required to surrender all electronic devices for the duration of their case (phones, PDA's, pagers, games, etc.).</p><p>When outside the court room all jurors were required to remain with the Sheriff and my fiancee, who has a lift phobia, was basically told to "suck it up" when the jury had to all cram into the hotel lift together (essentially because the Sheriff didn't want to climb stairs).</p><p>The most bizarre thing about the whole affair, though... there was a long weekend in the middle of the case and the jurors were allowed to go home for the weekend. WTF???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Western Australia , the courts " ask " you to surrender your phone .
Does n't even matter if it does n't have a camera.Similar here in Queensland... my fiancee went through jury duty for a civil case last year and jurors were required to surrender all electronic devices for the duration of their case ( phones , PDA 's , pagers , games , etc .
) .When outside the court room all jurors were required to remain with the Sheriff and my fiancee , who has a lift phobia , was basically told to " suck it up " when the jury had to all cram into the hotel lift together ( essentially because the Sheriff did n't want to climb stairs ) .The most bizarre thing about the whole affair , though... there was a long weekend in the middle of the case and the jurors were allowed to go home for the weekend .
WTF ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Western Australia, the courts "ask" you to surrender your phone.
Doesn't even matter if it doesn't have a camera.Similar here in Queensland... my fiancee went through jury duty for a civil case last year and jurors were required to surrender all electronic devices for the duration of their case (phones, PDA's, pagers, games, etc.
).When outside the court room all jurors were required to remain with the Sheriff and my fiancee, who has a lift phobia, was basically told to "suck it up" when the jury had to all cram into the hotel lift together (essentially because the Sheriff didn't want to climb stairs).The most bizarre thing about the whole affair, though... there was a long weekend in the middle of the case and the jurors were allowed to go home for the weekend.
WTF???
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime. Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime .
Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm certainly not going to agree to being sentenced to weeks of solitary confinement without having myself been accused of a crime.
Even prisoners get to receive visitors and make phone calls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014336</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1264929840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My question is, do the judges sequester themselves in the same way?  Or are they somehow  presumed to be immune from the type of opinion swaying that jurors might experience from the media?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My question is , do the judges sequester themselves in the same way ?
Or are they somehow presumed to be immune from the type of opinion swaying that jurors might experience from the media ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question is, do the judges sequester themselves in the same way?
Or are they somehow  presumed to be immune from the type of opinion swaying that jurors might experience from the media?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31017738</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck ever seating a jury again!</title>
	<author>Taur0</author>
	<datestamp>1264947780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just bring my princess leia outfit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just bring my princess leia outfit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just bring my princess leia outfit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007034</id>
	<title>I found a loophole!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264971300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>xbox 360, connect to net, talk via in-game messaging. eat that, Johnny Law!</p><p>Or use yahoo instant messenger. IMs are not on the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>xbox 360 , connect to net , talk via in-game messaging .
eat that , Johnny Law ! Or use yahoo instant messenger .
IMs are not on the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xbox 360, connect to net, talk via in-game messaging.
eat that, Johnny Law!Or use yahoo instant messenger.
IMs are not on the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020358</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265282520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because the assumption is the other side will promptly call attention to such an attempt.  And really, even if you had access to research materials - unless you look up each and every thing said by the judge or attorney (which is obviously impractical) you wouldn't know if they were pulling a fast one anyhow.<br>
&nbsp; <br>The real intent here anyhow is to prevent you from being swayed by information from outside the courtroom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How in the world is a " normal " person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they are n't even allowed to research what is being said ? Because the assumption is the other side will promptly call attention to such an attempt .
And really , even if you had access to research materials - unless you look up each and every thing said by the judge or attorney ( which is obviously impractical ) you would n't know if they were pulling a fast one anyhow .
  The real intent here anyhow is to prevent you from being swayed by information from outside the courtroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?Because the assumption is the other side will promptly call attention to such an attempt.
And really, even if you had access to research materials - unless you look up each and every thing said by the judge or attorney (which is obviously impractical) you wouldn't know if they were pulling a fast one anyhow.
  The real intent here anyhow is to prevent you from being swayed by information from outside the courtroom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1264969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is surprising how?</p><p><i>Such use has resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors, and imposition of fines.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The instructions state jurors must not [...] communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.</i></p><p>Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is surprising how ? Such use has resulted in mistrials , exclusion of jurors , and imposition of fines .
... The instructions state jurors must not [ ... ] communicate through any blog or website , through any internet chat room , or by way of any other social networking websites , including Facebook , MySpace , LinkedIn , and YouTube.Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is surprising how?Such use has resulted in mistrials, exclusion of jurors, and imposition of fines.
... The instructions state jurors must not [...] communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.Because we all know Facebook and YouTube are full of impartial people who know anything about case law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006948</id>
	<title>Re:No different than any other sequestering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I can't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway</i> <br> <br>
Here in Western Australia, the courts "ask" you to surrender your phone. Doesn't even matter if it doesn't have a camera.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway Here in Western Australia , the courts " ask " you to surrender your phone .
Does n't even matter if it does n't have a camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine call phones or networked computers are allowed for a sequestered jury anyway  
Here in Western Australia, the courts "ask" you to surrender your phone.
Doesn't even matter if it doesn't have a camera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008678</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1264947240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!</p></div><p>
Perhaps jury duty works differently where you are.  The last time I was called in, I received notice several weeks beforehand.  Ultimately I only went two days for a couple hours each day.  I'm quite sure nobody thought I died in that time frame.<br> <br>
Furthermore this may actually only apply to jurors who are drawn for the trial (as opposed to alternates or extras), once the trial has begun.  I would be surprised if more than a handful of people per year ended up being disconnected for more than 2 days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>people thinking I 'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs !
Perhaps jury duty works differently where you are .
The last time I was called in , I received notice several weeks beforehand .
Ultimately I only went two days for a couple hours each day .
I 'm quite sure nobody thought I died in that time frame .
Furthermore this may actually only apply to jurors who are drawn for the trial ( as opposed to alternates or extras ) , once the trial has begun .
I would be surprised if more than a handful of people per year ended up being disconnected for more than 2 days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!
Perhaps jury duty works differently where you are.
The last time I was called in, I received notice several weeks beforehand.
Ultimately I only went two days for a couple hours each day.
I'm quite sure nobody thought I died in that time frame.
Furthermore this may actually only apply to jurors who are drawn for the trial (as opposed to alternates or extras), once the trial has begun.
I would be surprised if more than a handful of people per year ended up being disconnected for more than 2 days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014182</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetically ignorant and condescending</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1264929000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I knew a witness personally before the trial, </p></div><p>Then (at least in Canada, and I expect other commonwealth countries) you would be excluded as a juror for having a potential, or perceived bias. <br>
Same as if you had ever had any interaction with the accused, either of the lawyers, any of the police officers or witnesses involved, or any of the other jurors before the trial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I knew a witness personally before the trial , Then ( at least in Canada , and I expect other commonwealth countries ) you would be excluded as a juror for having a potential , or perceived bias .
Same as if you had ever had any interaction with the accused , either of the lawyers , any of the police officers or witnesses involved , or any of the other jurors before the trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I knew a witness personally before the trial, Then (at least in Canada, and I expect other commonwealth countries) you would be excluded as a juror for having a potential, or perceived bias.
Same as if you had ever had any interaction with the accused, either of the lawyers, any of the police officers or witnesses involved, or any of the other jurors before the trial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007992</id>
	<title>Re:Fine fine fine.</title>
	<author>rts008</author>
	<datestamp>1264939080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering, not to mention people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!</p></div><p>Did you skip 'Civics' in Jr. High to get high?<br>What part of 'jury DUTY' did you not understand?<br>Pain and suffering?  WTF?!?!<br>You self-entitled asshat!</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though.</b> This isn't *suppose* to have any influence at all I am sure, but what if more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors? Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.</p></div><p>No, the 'in the know' crowd still have the same tricks that worked for past generations, and we now have Smart Fones 2!!11!</p><p>*hint*  "If he/she was arrested, then he/she <b>must</b> be guilty."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering , not to mention people thinking I 'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs ! Did you skip 'Civics ' in Jr. High to get high ? What part of 'jury DUTY ' did you not understand ? Pain and suffering ?
WTF ? ! ? ! You self-entitled asshat !
I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though .
This is n't * suppose * to have any influence at all I am sure , but what if more people who do n't use the internet end up being jurors ?
Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.No , the 'in the know ' crowd still have the same tricks that worked for past generations , and we now have Smart Fones 2 ! ! 11 !
* hint * " If he/she was arrested , then he/she must be guilty .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering, not to mention people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!Did you skip 'Civics' in Jr. High to get high?What part of 'jury DUTY' did you not understand?Pain and suffering?
WTF?!?!You self-entitled asshat!
I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though.
This isn't *suppose* to have any influence at all I am sure, but what if more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors?
Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.No, the 'in the know' crowd still have the same tricks that worked for past generations, and we now have Smart Fones 2!!11!
*hint*  "If he/she was arrested, then he/she must be guilty.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31024876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31017738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31028114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31018862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31023546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31016782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31032092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31021232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_222231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31026444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31017738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31028114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31021232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31026444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31018862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31023546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31011698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31024876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31020358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31009776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_222231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006948
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31016782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31006940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31032092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31010446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31014336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31008578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_222231.31007404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
