by webrisorThe Textalyzer: a 21st century Breathalyzer
It’s no real secret, texting and driving has become almost as (if not even more) prevalent than drinking and driving. While similar in nature, they both seem to stand on opposite ends of a spectrum. Socially speaking, texting and driving is generally considered to be harmless and somewhat acceptable while drinking and driving is now almost unanimously stigmatized. And legally speaking, texting and driving has much less weight than drinking and driving does. In fact, it isn’t even a criminal infraction.
So while a standard DUI can land you up to 5 years in jail, here in Quebec texting and driving will only result in a fine of $80-$100 (lowest among all provinces), and 4 demerit points. Peanuts, right? No wonder this phenomenon is so prevalent. But it shouldn’t be. Distracted driving is as dangerous, if not even more dangerous than drunk driving. This has already been backed by numerous studies. (Edit: Due to a new U.K law enacted in march 2017, a single text could now cost young drivers their license)
Recent technological breakthroughs may help to curb the rate of accidents caused by texting on the road. The textalyzer is, for texting and driving, exactly what the breathalyzer is to drinking and driving. Simply put, this device is designed to help police figure if someone involved in a car accident was unlawfully distracted while driving. It is being developed by Cellebrite, an Israeli firm made famous for assisting the FBI in cracking the San Bernardino attacker’s iPhone.
It hasn’t been approved for use in the United States yet, and we probably won’t be seeing it in Canada for some time. Nonetheless, the textalyzer is a great illustration of how technological innovation and law can intersect in order to adapt to our tech-obsessed digital generation. For now though, we’ll just have to stick with what we have: section 439.1 of the Highway Safety Code:
No person may, while driving a road vehicle, use a hand-held device that includes a telephone function.For the purposes of this section, a driver who is holding a hand-held device that includes a telephone function is presumed to be using the device.
Check out the reactions of these young Belgians taking their “driving exam”. They were fooled into thinking that in order to pass, they had to prove they could successfully text and drive. The results, while hilarious, still prove a very serious point.
by webrisorVirtual Reality Allows Jurors to Explore Crime Scenes
The jury experience, much like almost every other facet of the criminal justice system, is sadly still entrenched in the past. Technology has barely begun to make its way into modern courthouses, resulting in long delays and inefficient procedures. Crime scene reconstruction practices mainly rely on the use of photos, videos, medical records, hand-drawn sketches, and even 3D-rendered animations to give jurors an idea of exactly what went down at the scene of the crime. But the main problem with all of these tools is that, at best, they can merely offer an approximation of reality, not reality itself.
Here’s where Mehzeb Chowdhury comes in. This brilliant PhD researcher from Durham University has designed something that may just revolutionize the jury experience. Imagine someone kidnapped Wall-E the robot, locked him in a dark room, and made him watch 100,000 hours of CSI: Miami episodes. The result? Chowdhury’s brainchild: a MABMAT robotic imaging system capable of recording 360-degree HD videos while autonomously roaming a crime scene at the very moment it’s being investigated. This way, every single detail is captured, and the jury gets to see exactly what the police did at the scene of the crime.
As Chowdhury explains, his ultimate goal was to remove the bias and subjective guesswork from the courtroom:
Unlike 3D recreations, [my system] would be true representations of how things were, rather than a user-created propaganda video to sway the jury. The most-problematic aspect of crime scene visits is that, with time, every characteristic of the scene changes in some way or the other. This is called scene degradation. Years could pass between a crime being committed, and a jury scene visit, with very little remaining the same. A contemporaneous snapshot of the entire crime scene would preserve the necessary details for investigation and trial.
I, for one, would welcome this innovation. Jury trials are far from perfect, and riddled with flaws ranging from racial bias to technological limitations. Criminal attorneys already have to be very careful navigating all of these pitfalls. At the very least, adopting such a technology would help avoid crucial facts getting “lost in translation”, and could ultimately be the difference between an acquittal and a life sentence.
If you’ve been convicted of an offence, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749