The Court of Twitter Is Now in Session

Sometimes I find myself speaking too soon. You know, you say something that you believe is the Gospel truth, only to be completely contradicted 5 minutes later.

It's called Footinthemouth Syndrome and I suffer from it periodically. It's normally not deadly. Afflicted persons usually just experience bouts of embarrassment.

My current episode with Footinthemouth Syndrome involves the social online networking service Twitter.

Last week I wrote in this blog that Twitter was basically a complete waste of time, a useless novelty on the Internet with no practical purpose whatsoever.

And now I am ashamed to admit, that I was wrong, that I spoke too soon. I had an outbreak of Footinthemouth Syndrome.

Twitter actually does have a legitimate use after all, one that has the potential to revolutionize this country.

And what is this use for Twitter that is so fantastic that I've done a complete 360-degree change of opinion? Drum roll, please.

We should trash the entire court system -- local, state, federal, all of those appeals courts, People's Court, Judges Judy, Wapner and Joe Brown, and Night Court to name just a few -- and replace them with a legal system using the court of public opinion and based completely on Twitter.

Think about it. Because Twitter messages may not exceed 140 characters, it would force lawyers to be extremely concise. The attorneys couldn't grandstand or pontificate because they would only have 140 characters to make their case, before it got automatically handed off to the other side for their turn.

Oh sure, I know a lot of court cases will require more than 140 characters to argue their entire position, so this new trial system will allow back and forth bantering between the prosecution and defense -- as long as each side does not exceed the maximum character count per Tweet.

As a part of this legal system overhaul, we'd also get rid of the completely asinine jury system.

It seems that with the current system, attorneys always want the least knowledgeable people on a jury.

If you read a paper or watch the TV news or just happen to be aware of the world you live in, attorneys often don't want you on the jury. No, the ideal jurist doesn't read anything more complex than TV Guide, thinks the Internet is evil and only watches the Game Show Network unless Hogan's Heroes with that hunky Richard Dawson happens to be airing on TVLand.

The attorneys want to be able to mold the jury to favor their side and an obtuse juror makes the best kind of counselor Play-Doh.

But that's the old system.

Our new system would allow everyone to be a jurist.

You wouldn't be penalized for having any preliminary opinions about a case. Our new and improved court system would allow anyone to follow a particular case -- TheStateOfMissouriVersusJoeSchmoe@twitter.com, for example -- and vote after the lawyers exhausted the number of tweets they could squeeze out, arguing their respective positions.

Rather than having a measly 12 jurists, popular cases could have literally millions of peers voting on the outcome. Just think about how many people would have weighed in during the 1995 OJ Simpson murder trial if this system had been in place.

I don't think that "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit, I twit." would have impressed many Twitter jurists watching from Peoria, Des Moines or Cape Girardeau. OJ would never have gotten off.

And because, our new legal system would be organized around Twitter, there would be no need for any expensive courthouses and courtrooms or those fancy robes the judges all wear. We could save a fortune in just dry cleaning costs alone.

No, we could just outfit our judges -- we can't get rid of the judges, since someone has to keep order -- with Blackberry's or some other smart phone and let them preside from wherever the heck they want to preside. And if that location happens to be the 17th hole at their favorite golf course, that's OK -- as long as they have cell phone reception.

Not only would there be significant cost savings by revamping our entire legal system around Twitter, the government could actually make money.

How so? While anyone could follow the case of TheStateOfMissouriVersusJoeSchmoe@twitter.com for free, if you want to vote on the verdict, that will be 95 cents for the State to recognize your opinion. And feel free to vote as often as you like. Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Diners Club are all accepted.

Oh, sure some defendants might be able to buy their way out of prison, but what's the difference between buying Twitter votes or paying a high-priced attorney -- or in the case of OJ, a team of high-priced attorneys -- to talk your way out of doing time?

Not much if you ask me.

I rest my case.