Is Jury Service a right or a responsibility/duty?

[ggsimmonds]

Juries do not need comprehensive knowledge of the law, they need to focus on the events that took place. The judge is the one who worries about the legal aspects (e.g. whether to allow certain evidence, legal proceedings, etc). The juror's task largely boils down to "who do you believe?"

Not sure about all jurisdictions, but this why here most appeals are done due to procedural reasons. Generally jury trials are concerned with the facts around the case, but the appeal is concerned with the law.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes I am. You keep implying they require knowledge of the law. They aren't around for extensive legal arguments. They are around for evidence presentation, and witness testimony, and subject matter testimony, and that is what they evaluate.

And they're still giving a verdict based on a legal construct. Guilty? Or not guilty? Then is it guilty of murder? Or guilty of manslaughter? They need to be able to distinguish between legal constructs to be able to give a proper verdict.

[Gatsby]

And they're still giving a verdict based on a legal construct. Guilty? Or not guilty? Then is it guilty of murder? Or guilty of manslaughter? They need to be able to distinguish between legal constructs to be able to give a proper verdict.

The jury do not decide the crime, the prosecution brings the charge and then the jury decide if the evidence is sufficient.

For example, a guy gets hauled in for killing someone and the prosecution charges murder and culpable homicide, to cover their ass (I think thats manslaughter in most places). The judge, considering the case law (and/or statutes in civil law systems) presented by counsel, and considering if there's enough to proceed in a murder trial (if theres not even corroboration he has to chuck it out as "no case to answer" and revert to the culp. hom. charge), decides what needs to proven in order to convict. He knows that (in Scotland at least) you need to prove:
-Actus Reus: evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the act, plus corroboration,
-Mens Rea: evidence BRD that it was purposeful or at least "wickedly reckless", plus corroboration (which is a definition generated by a case called Drury v HM Advocate).

So, having decided what evidence is even admissible, he then instructs the jury that "if you find that evidence x and evidence y are convincing and there is corroboration for both of these facts, you can convict. Either in isolation is not enough". So a long legal debate and deliberation occurs, boiling down a complex consideration of various sources of law and preceding judgements into an easily-digestable question of fact. All the jury has to decide is if the evidence is convincing. Its not a legal matter, its a factual one.

P.S. I use Scots Law as an example because thats what I know but its just to illustrate the basic principle that in the grander scope of a trial (criminal or civil) the jury really doesnt have to know squat about the law. The law and the facts are really quite separate things. If you appeal a case in Scotland it can either be on legal grounds (there was some procedural miscarriage or the wrong charge was applied or some legal definition was misinterpreted etc.) or factual grounds (it didnt happen, and either the evidence wasnt sufficient or new evidence has arisen). I dare say a similar system exists elsewhere.

You dont spend 5 years in law school learning how to decide if evidence is convincing.

[PointOfViewGun]

The jury do not decide the crime, the prosecution brings the charge and then the jury decide if the evidence is sufficient.

For example, a guy gets hauled in for killing someone and the prosecution charges murder and culpable homicide, to cover their ass (I think thats manslaughter in most places). The judge, considering the case law (and/or statutes in civil law systems) presented by counsel, and considering if there's enough to proceed in a murder trial (if theres not even corroboration he has to chuck it out as "no case to answer" and revert to the culp. hom. charge), decides what needs to proven in order to convict. He knows that (in Scotland at least) you need to prove:
-Actus Reus: evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the act, plus corroboration,
-Mens Rea: evidence BRD that it was purposeful or at least "wickedly reckless", plus corroboration (which is a definition generated by a case called Drury v HM Advocate).

So, having decided what evidence is even admissible, he then instructs the jury that "if you find that evidence x and evidence y are convincing and there is corroboration for both of these facts, you can convict. Either in isolation is not enough". So a long legal debate and deliberation occurs, boiling down a complex consideration of various sources of law and preceding judgements into an easily-digestable question of fact. All the jury has to decide is if the evidence is convincing. Its not a legal matter, its a factual one.

P.S. I use Scots Law as an example because thats what I know but its just to illustrate the basic principle that in the grander scope of a trial (criminal or civil) the jury really doesnt have to know squat about the law. The law and the facts are really quite separate things. If you appeal a case in Scotland it can either be on legal grounds (there was some procedural miscarriage or the wrong charge was applied or some legal definition was misinterpreted etc.) or factual grounds (it didnt happen, and either the evidence wasnt sufficient or new evidence has arisen). I dare say a similar system exists elsewhere.

You dont spend 5 years in law school learning how to decide if evidence is convincing.

They do just that. They have to decide if the charge brought by the prosecution is the appropriate one (guilty) or not (not guilty).

[Gatsby]

They do just that. They have to decide if the charge brought by the prosecution is the appropriate one (guilty) or not (not guilty).

No, because the charge can get chucked out at the very start of the trial, that's the "no case to answer" thing. Some amount of a case is needed to even get to the jury trial, and if there's simply not enough evidence for a certain charge to even put to a jury, or the accused acts aren't actually within the definition of a certain offence, it's up to the judge to throw it out.

If the evidence has gotten to a jury decision, that means the charge was appropriate, all that is left for the jury is whether the charge has been proven. When selecting the charge, it's only appropriate in relation to the alleged acts and at least a basic evidential foundation.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, because the charge can get chucked out at the very start of the trial, that's the "no case to answer" thing. Some amount of a case is needed to even get to the jury trial, and if there's simply not enough evidence for a certain charge to even put to a jury, or the accused acts aren't actually within the definition of a certain offence, it's up to the judge to throw it out.

If the evidence has gotten to a jury decision, that means the charge was appropriate, all that is left for the jury is whether the charge has been proven. When selecting the charge, it's only appropriate in relation to the alleged acts and at least a basic evidential foundation.

Sigh, you can't claim a charge to be proven by evidence without having an understanding of what the charge actually means, which is a legal construct.

[Gatsby]

Can I just ask have you ever read a case? The jury is told "if a certain set of facts has been proven then that's guilty". They are spoon-fed the most basic explanation of evidential requirement of an offence and how that relates to the alleged facts and decide if that's satisfied.

They don't need to know the law, they are instructed in the tiny area of their competence and that's it. For the judge to even be able to formulate this instruction to the jury there must be a legal debate, and the respective sides will try to argue essentially he margins of where the evidential burden is satisfied by the evidence.

You don't need some magic legally-literate public to have juries. They walk in, the judge tells them what he's decided needs to be proven. They go away, decide what's been proven, and if it meets the standard the judge had offered then they say "guilty".

[PointOfViewGun]

Can I just ask have you ever read a case? The jury is told "if a certain set of facts has been proven then that's guilty". They are spoon-fed the most basic explanation of evidential requirement of an offence and how that relates to the alleged facts and decide if that's satisfied.

They don't need to know the law, they are instructed in the tiny area of their competence and that's it. For the judge to even be able to formulate this instruction to the jury there must be a legal debate, and the respective sides will try to argue essentially he margins of where the evidential burden is satisfied by the evidence.

You don't need some magic legally-literate public to have juries. They walk in, the judge tells them what he's decided needs to be proven. They go away, decide what's been proven, and if it meets the standard the judge had offered then they say "guilty".

What constitutes as manslaughter or murder are not matters of law?

[Gaidin]

What constitutes as manslaughter or murder are not matters of law?

Analogy time for Setekh! Let me put it this way. I can spoon-feed you a two sentence explanation of what a MOSFET(no I wouldn't use that term when I do) does that electrical engineer PhDs spend entire CAREERS bloody RESEARCHING and you'll walk out of this thread feeling like you have a good handle on whether when someone throws a set of facts on electronics your way whether that was a MOSFET under the cover of that plastic case or not.

This is what the jury gets from the judge before they go back and run their little debate over the facts of the case. And I'm an engineer with 8 years of education and four years of work experience telling you this.

[PointOfViewGun]

Analogy time for Setekh! Let me put it this way. I can spoon-feed you a two sentence explanation of what a MOSFET(no I wouldn't use that term when I do) does that electrical engineer PhDs spend entire CAREERS bloody RESEARCHING and you'll walk out of this thread feeling like you have a good handle on whether when someone throws a set of facts on electronics your way whether that was a MOSFET under the cover of that plastic case or not.

This is what the jury gets from the judge before they go back and run their little debate over the facts of the case. And I'm an engineer with 8 years of education and four years of work experience telling you this.

So, they do need a level of understanding of the law. Thanks for agreeing finally. No one said that they need to recite it by heart at moment's notice. Hopefully you're done with this straw man.

[Gaidin]

So, they do need a level of understanding of the law. Thanks for agreeing finally. No one said that they need to recite it by heart at moment's notice. Hopefully you're done with this straw man.

We only ever claimed they didn't need a legal education. Why? Because legal arguments and intricacies are made with them out of the room. There's no way you're dodging these points.

Just like you don't need an engineering education to understand a two sentence fundamentals of a common semiconductor. Might be a useful investment for me though.

[Gatsby]

What constitutes as manslaughter or murder are not matters of law?

You're right, that is a matter of law, and it is up to counsel to argue which offence they believe should be put to the jury. The jury doesn't look at a set of facts and say "that is murder/manslaughter" they are presented with the facts and the legal debate will only leave them with one offence to decide on, and they will then decide if that offense has been proven to be committed.

In relation to a single instance of alleged conduct a jury can only consider one offence, and then make a binary guilty/not guilty decision.*




*Unless you're in Scotland in which case we have the rather embarrassingly archaic tripartite verdicts of guilty/not guilty/not proven.

[AqD]

How does "not proven" affect the result? any difference from "not guilty"?

[Stario]

One thing worth mentioning is judges cannot nullify the law due to an oath they take which requires them to follow the law (even if they believe the law will produce an unjust result). On the other hand, a jury can nullify the law. For example, if an individual steals food in order to survive or for the survival of their children, a judge must convict as the law has been broken (stealing), the jury on the other hand can nullify the law and instead acquit- based on conscience.

Lastly, unpopular legislation/laws can be nullified by way of a jury, prompting changes in such legislations/laws if they are continually being nullified.

[Cyclops]

...

*Unless you're in Scotland in which case we have the rather embarrassingly archaic tripartite verdicts of guilty/not guilty/not proven.

You misspelled epically awesome. Its the perfect verdict for tarring someone's reputation while sparing the state the expense of imprisonment.

[Gatsby]

How does "not proven" affect the result? any difference from "not guilty"?

There is no legal difference at all.

I've hard a few of my professors mockingly refer to it as "not guilty, but don't do it again". Don't know how it came about. I've heard one theory that we originally had proven/not proven as the two options, and when we were persecuting Covenanters "proven" meant the death penalty. Some sympathetic juries, faced with complete proof of illegal religious activity, declined to stay within the factual nature of their role. Unable to say "not proven", they made the moral exoneration of "not guilty", similar to how Stario said juries can nullify the law in exceptional circumstance.

[Cyclops]

There is no legal difference at all.

I've hard a few of my professors mockingly refer to it as "not guilty, but don't do it again". Don't know how it came about. I've heard one theory that we originally had proven/not proven as the two options, and when we were persecuting Covenanters "proven" meant the death penalty. Some sympathetic juries, faced with complete proof of illegal religious activity, declined to stay within the factual nature of their role. Unable to say "not proven", they made the moral exoneration of "not guilty", similar to how Stario said juries can nullify the law in exceptional circumstance.

This goes to the heart of the role of the jury. Essentially a jury is a panel of judges. It is the fundamental right of people in a democracy to administer the law, more fundamental that voting in some ways. Its is literally where the people rule on the law. You get messes like OJ Simpson and other farces, but its a clear expression of the feeling of the communities values.

Of course lawyers as a clique can't stand that non-lawyers could administer law (with some basis) so they've shoved a judge in there who is really a lawyer to ensure the ordinary people don't mess with the lawyer's formulas and agreed positions. In Australia there's been a push for a long time to get rid of juries, and then the law will be a dance of lawyers.

One of the examples cited for and against juries is one in NSW from the 19th century, can't remember the case, possibly apocryphal of a man accused of cattle theft. The jury heard the evidence, considered their verdict and the foreman delivered it to the court: "not guilty, but he has to give the cattle back". The judge went nuts, threatened everyone with contempt, strongly hinted they should come back with a guilty verdict but they just returned a "not guilty" and settled the matter outside the court later.

If you include the people in the justice system they are more likely to stand by it IMHO. Its strengths are their strengths, and they are implicated in its faults to, so it becomes a more binding contract. If the people have nothing to do with the law, and its just lawyers dancing on clauses and precedents it becomes a byzantine mess, and I think people will lose faith in it.

[Gatsby]

I see what you're saying, but cases and precedents are merely a way of formulating a consistent reasoning through which we can maintain some kind of judicial foreseeability, imo one of the most important things in a legal system.

The only way we have got to the point where lawyers have to dance about around piles of legal authority arguing over every little part of a dispute is because appealing to a jury's sense of innate equity or fairness could give you 10 different outcomes for 10 identical sets of facts. It's catastrophic for society, especially commerce, to not have a vague idea of what the rules are. And I do refer especially to civil cases, which are the vast majority of court cases.

The way the common law system evolved in Scotland was that in the old burghs every dispute would be decided by a panel of ordinary citizens. As time progressed the burghs began keeping a record of the facts of a case and what was decided, so that if similar facts arose the citizens could refer to it and there could be consistency.

[Cyclops]

....
The way the common law system evolved in Scotland was that in the old burghs every dispute would be decided by a panel of ordinary citizens. As time progressed the burghs began keeping a record of the facts of a case and what was decided, so that if similar facts arose the citizens could refer to it and there could be consistency.

That sounds a lot like the French legal system imported as the English Common law. Probably Scotland, England and France developed (and cross pollinated) from a common legal tradition.

[Copperknickers II]

Imo, if you want to have a jury if you are ever a defendant in a courtroom, it's your duty to do the same service for other people. You should be able to refuse jury service, on the understanding that you will not get a jury should you ever be charged with a crime. Would save a bit of money at least.