|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2010 22:12:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 14, 2010 10:37:08 GMT
The Independent's reporting of this story is incredibly sloppy.
The Diplock Courts in NI (notoriously) sat without juries.
There are not 12 jurors in criminal trials in 'Britain' anyway; In Scotland the number of jurors is 15.
And depending on what you call a 'major' criminal trial . . only serious trials in Scotland have juries anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2010 12:29:25 GMT
I suppose what struck me was the implication that the jurors in previous trials had been nobbled. We'll never know how often that happens, I suppose!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2010 13:54:01 GMT
we have court trials all the time. it is the defendant's call. there are many reasons to opt for a court trial rather than a jury. in a court trial, ONLY the legal issues will be considered by the judge, and no attention paid to emotional bs one way or the other. the reality is that, if a defendant is factually innocent, he has a much better chance of acquittal by a judge than by a jury
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 14, 2010 14:51:45 GMT
A better question might be, "can a trial WITH a jury be justice". The popular perception, that of twelve good men and true trying an accused might in the dim distant past have had some relevance, but not today! The whole concept of jury trial is an anachronism which, with the complexities of the modern statute book, would not be much of a loss, and might even be a radical improvement. They came into being as a balance to the tyrannical rule of the barons, to counter an oppression long gone, and were supposed to give an accused a fair hearing, with his peers the sole arbiters of guilt or innocence.
But to be brutally honest, your average jury member these days would have difficulty in reading the Sun, let alone understanding the complexities of a long and highly technical trial, where both sides field "expert" and often scientific witnesses who contradict one another. When the Northern Ireland troubles were at their height, we did away with juries there, for the simple reason that witnesses were coerced and threatened with death if they did not acquit to order. The "Diplock" courts, as they came to be known, did not result in a diminution of justice; rather the opposite, in fact.
There are a number of ways in which the present system, which in my view does not serve justice too well, could be ameliorated. The obvious one would be to simply do away with juries, and allow a judge, sitting with three lay magistrates, to decide on guilt and punishment. Or one could reverse the present roles of judge and jury, and allow the judge to decide on guilt or innocence, and the jury on sentence.
Of course, if one wishes to retain the present system, then it would seem eminently sensible to select only jurors who have the necessary mental capacity, and the maturity to follow and decide on a complicated trial without prejudice. That would mean selection on educational standards; which is anathema in todays climate. But do not assume that the present jury system guarantees fairness--which must mean the conviction of the guilty as well as the acquittal of the innocent. I have known jurors who "see nothing wrong with a little honest thieving"!!!
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 14, 2010 15:03:19 GMT
Ben's post reminded me of the old joke, that juries are comprised of those who are too stupid to get themselves out of jury service.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2010 18:30:32 GMT
Ben's post reminded me of the old joke, that juries are comprised of those who are too stupid to get themselves out of jury service. My brother in law got lumbered with a fraud trial which went on for months, partly because the defendant parted company with his lawyers and insisted on defending himself. His right, of course, but making honest citizens sit through that lot just because they didn't have an excuse must amount to Cruel and Unusual Punishment
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:05:33 GMT
A better question might be, "can a trial WITH a jury be justice". The popular perception, that of twelve good men and true trying an accused might in the dim distant past have had some relevance, but not today! The whole concept of jury trial is an anachronism which, with the complexities of the modern statute book, would not be much of a loss, and might even be a radical improvement. They came into being as a balance to the tyrannical rule of the barons, to counter an oppression long gone, and were supposed to give an accused a fair hearing, with his peers the sole arbiters of guilt or innocence. But to be brutally honest, your average jury member these days would have difficulty in reading the Sun, let alone understanding the complexities of a long and highly technical trial, where both sides field "expert" and often scientific witnesses who contradict one another. When the Northern Ireland troubles were at their height, we did away with juries there, for the simple reason that witnesses were coerced and threatened with death if they did not acquit to order. The "Diplock" courts, as they came to be known, did not result in a diminution of justice; rather the opposite, in fact. There are a number of ways in which the present system, which in my view does not serve justice too well, could be ameliorated. The obvious one would be to simply do away with juries, and allow a judge, sitting with three lay magistrates, to decide on guilt and punishment. Or one could reverse the present roles of judge and jury, and allow the judge to decide on guilt or innocence, and the jury on sentence. Of course, if one wishes to retain the present system, then it would seem eminently sensible to select only jurors who have the necessary mental capacity, and the maturity to follow and decide on a complicated trial without prejudice. That would mean selection on educational standards; which is anathema in todays climate. But do not assume that the present jury system guarantees fairness--which must mean the conviction of the guilty as well as the acquittal of the innocent. I have known jurors who "see nothing wrong with a little honest thieving"!!! for the most part, you are correct. however, the most rational solution is to have professional jurors. it would be the same as any other civil service job, requiring a minimum of education and having to pass a test for competency. this would give you jurors who based their verdict SOLELY on the evidence presented with NO emotion involved whatsoever, since there is no place in the criminal justice system for ANY kind of emotion of course, the downside to this is that it would raise the cost of jury trials. you could not have professional jurors only paid fifteen dollars a day.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:07:26 GMT
Ben's post reminded me of the old joke, that juries are comprised of those who are too stupid to get themselves out of jury service. not always. i would love to get to be on a jury, but never made it past voir dire. that's one of the downsides to being a totally honest person
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:12:07 GMT
Ben's post reminded me of the old joke, that juries are comprised of those who are too stupid to get themselves out of jury service. My brother in law got lumbered with a fraud trial which went on for months, partly because the defendant parted company with his lawyers and insisted on defending himself. His right, of course, but making honest citizens sit through that lot just because they didn't have an excuse must amount to Cruel and Unusual Punishment i'll be he was convicted. it's funny, but not a joke, that anyone who represents themself has a fool for a client. even attorneys have a lawyer if they find themselves charged with something
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2010 11:28:51 GMT
You are right, Jumbo, he apparently quite successfully convicted himself within the first couple of weeks.
As for jury service: I would have been excluded because of various jobs I had, so may have been on a list somewhere. But I would have made a rotten juror; I'm not good at team work.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 22:34:43 GMT
You are right, Jumbo, he apparently quite successfully convicted himself within the first couple of weeks. As for jury service: I would have been excluded because of various jobs I had, so may have been on a list somewhere. But I would have made a rotten juror; I'm not good at team work. it's no surprise. totally disregarding the fact that most people have no knowledge of procedure, let alone much else, the primary reason that you can't successfully represent yourself is because it is actually a conflict of interest. you have a personal stake in the case, and that interferes with your ability to present it rationally actually, i think that you would make a good juror, except in certain types of cases. you are relatively open minded enough to consider the evidence, IF the necessary verdict didn't violate your personal ideals
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2010 7:46:37 GMT
You are right, Jumbo, he apparently quite successfully convicted himself within the first couple of weeks. As for jury service: I would have been excluded because of various jobs I had, so may have been on a list somewhere. But I would have made a rotten juror; I'm not good at team work. it's no surprise. totally disregarding the fact that most people have no knowledge of procedure, let alone much else, the primary reason that you can't successfully represent yourself is because it is actually a conflict of interest. you have a personal stake in the case, and that interferes with your ability to present it rationally actually, i think that you would make a good juror, except in certain types of cases. you are relatively open minded enough to consider the evidence, IF the necessary verdict didn't violate your personal ideals Thanks for those kind and probably undeserved words. Believe it or not, I can be as stubborn as you sound, and would probably not have much patience if my fellow jurors were working on a different wavelength. I hope I wouldn't neglect to bring in the right verdict, ideals or not. But we can't always be aware of when our prejudices and values cloud our judgement - one reason why jury trials aren't all they are cracked up to be.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2010 12:03:15 GMT
it's no surprise. totally disregarding the fact that most people have no knowledge of procedure, let alone much else, the primary reason that you can't successfully represent yourself is because it is actually a conflict of interest. you have a personal stake in the case, and that interferes with your ability to present it rationally actually, i think that you would make a good juror, except in certain types of cases. you are relatively open minded enough to consider the evidence, IF the necessary verdict didn't violate your personal ideals Thanks for those kind and probably undeserved words. Believe it or not, I can be as stubborn as you sound, and would probably not have much patience if my fellow jurors were working on a different wavelength. I hope I wouldn't neglect to bring in the right verdict, ideals or not. But we can't always be aware of when our prejudices and values cloud our judgement - one reason why jury trials aren't all they are cracked up to be. i think that they are deserved. you are in britain so it is a moot point, but, i was talking about a murder trial. we have bifurcated trials here. the same jury that considers guilt or innocence has to consider sentence also. if the evidence guilt was conclusively overwhelming, i seriously doubt that you would be able to vote for a death sentence, even though that would be the proper judgement
|
|