Trial By Jury

[Denny Crane!]

Something was raised in the Nazi thread which I had to make issue with.

It is this, which of us actually likes the trial by jury system? To be tried by a jury means to be tried by a jury of your peers.

I disagree with this system entirely.

You meet people everyday with the IQ lower than a well used dishcloth, who know only to eat when hungry and lash out at anyone who they think might be looking at them. Yet because these poeple hold no official position they are deemed suitable to sit on a jury. How can these people or even you and me make decisions in a multi million pound fraud trial, do we have the experience to decide if it is legal to move a pension through the cayman islands? (borrowed some of this from world according to clarkson. Amazing book)

A jury of your peers mean someone who is of equal standing or rank. Not very likely is it?

Trial by Jury is not the cornerstone of democracy but a giant gambling game with justice.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

In some cases it is more appropriate than others. I'd agree with it for murder and robbery, but not cases like fraud. Best in cases of libel and perjury, as those are about reputation and people can best judge if it has been damaged or the claims are false rather than a judge.

[Denny Crane!]

"" I'd agree with it for murder and robbery, but not cases like fraud. Best in cases of libel and perjury, as those are about reputation and people can best judge if it has been damaged or the claims are false rather than a judge.""

The vast majority of people are ruled by prejudice. They make snap judgements on a subject and will not be moved no matter the evidence. So it doesn't really matter what the case is I personally would rather have it judged by someone trained to be impartial and consider facts than someone quite capable of making a judgement based on someones appearance.

Not neccessarily one judge though, I would prefer a panel 3 or 4 judges.

peter

[Tom Paine]

I think the advantage of the jury of peers is a) you get a corss-section of prejudice and b) you don't have poeple who are, to be honest, unconnected with the real world making judgements abuot real-world stuff. Judges bring their own prejudices into a courtroom, anyway, and its naive to imagine they don't.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't imagine judges to be pinnacles of uncorruptable virtue in a sea of ignorance and prejudice.

They are however better than the dole bludger from the westend whose only dose of reality is from TV and the weekly trip down the post office for his giro. Or the upright shires lady who decided the offendor was guilty the moment he walked in because he looks the type. I would prefer a cross section of prejudice combined with a high level of intelligence.

The key is a jury of your peers. That is not what you get, you get a random cross section of society. This is why I said it is a gamble.

""You have to ask yourself, why is trial by jury so loved by liberal regimes but dispised by totalitarian regimes. Bare in mind that judges get appointed""

In britain however the judiciary is a power independant of the Government. Therefore it is very hard to corrupt. If it was easy to influence judges in this country Labour would have done it already as the judiciary is sternly opposed to Labours ideas and has regularly overturned their rulings in human rights cases over the last two years.

Peter

[imb39]

Trial by jury has been the bedrock of our legal system. The only other system is trial by judge/panel of judges. You have to ask yourself, why is trial by jury so loved by liberal regimes but dispised by totalitarian regimes. Bare in mind that judges get appointed. It is very easy for a regime to persue injustice in this system. The jury system diminishes this substantially. That's not to say that the jury system does not have weaknesses - as you've pointed out, but those weaknesses are out weighed by the protection they offer - the protection of justice.

I agree with SM that their use should be limited a little, especially when the case is so complicated that it involves ideas/concepts that usually take years to understand (fraud being the most obvious).

[Tom Paine]

And yet even the random cross-section offers protection. A jury is multiple people who can act as checks on each other, for a start.

Parallel running of the two seems best to me, for different cases, though... a year-long trial is not a jury trial, a month long one possibly. Or a trial for a complex ffence like fraud where it isn't clear-cut innocent/guilty.

[Denny Crane!]

""Parallel running of the two seems best to me, for different cases, though... a year-long trial is not a jury trial, a month long one possibly. Or a trial for a complex ffence like fraud where it isn't clear-cut innocent/guilty""

I can't really deny the logic of that I suppose.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

I think you're trying - you'#re denying the logic of the jury system in the other cases.

[Denny Crane!]

Because it is not logical. To put someone with an IQ of less than 80 into a courtroom to decide the future of a mans life is wrong. He shouldn't even has a say.

However what you propsed was the most likely compromise.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

Ah, right.
Anyway, how many juries consist entirely or even a majority of IQ under 80 jurors?

[Denny Crane!]

I never said majority or entirely consisted of. But the fact that you are going to allow them in randomly wether it is one or two or three etc.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

A jury of 12 s not affected much by the stupidity of 1 or 2 members.

[Denny Crane!]

A jury of 12 s not affected much by the stupidity of 1 or 2 members.

What if they had the deciding vote?

Everyone else is stalemated and these people need to cast the deciding vote.

Peter

[imb39]

Limitations are already put on juries. They will not let an imbecile on a jury. A bigot, yes. But imbecile no.

[Tom Paine]

Limitations are already put on juries. They will not let an imbecile on a jury. A bigot, yes. But imbecile no.

A judge can be a bigot too though.

[Denny Crane!]

Limitations are already put on juries. They will not let an imbecile on a jury. A bigot, yes. But imbecile no.

Define Imbecile.

Peter

[imb39]

Define Imbecile.

Peter

Mental retardation (also called mental handicap and the UK Mental Health Act (1983) defines mental impairment and severe mental impairment) is a term for a pattern of persistently slow learning of basic motor and language skills ("milestones") during childhood, and a significantly below-normal global intellectual capacity as an adult. One common criterion for diagnosis of mental retardation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70.

JURIES: SELECTION


HISTORY OF THE JURY SYSTEM

· The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta (The Great Charter of Liberties, 1215).
· The independence of the jury from the judge was established in Bushell's Case (1670).

ROLE OF THE JURY

· In criminal cases, the jury decide if the defendant is guilty or not (approx. three per cent of all crimes, heard in the Crown Court).
· In civil cases, the jury decide if the claimant has proved their case and the amount of damages (compensation). However, it is a right in only four types of civil case: defamation over £10,000, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud (under 200 trials per year). It is discretionary in other civil cases.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR JURY SERVICE

To qualify for jury service a person must be:
(a) aged between 18 and 70;
(b) registered on the electoral roll; and
(c) have lived in the UK for at least five years since the age of 13
(s1 of the Juries Act 1974)
INELIGIBILITY, DISQUALIFICATION AND EXCUSAL -

INELIGIBLE
Those suffering from mental disorders;
The judiciary and others concerned with the administration of justice;
The clergy.

DISQUALIFIED
People with certain criminal convictions;
Those currently on bail in criminal proceedings.

EXCUSED AS OF RIGHT
Anyone aged 65-70 years old;
Anyone who did jury service in the last two years;
Members of Parliament;
The medical profession;
The armed forces;
Practising members of a religious society.

DISCRETIONARY EXCUSAL
For a "good reason".

DISCHARGE BY THE JUDGE FOR LACK OF CAPACITY
Because of physical disability (such as deafness) or insufficient understanding of English.

SUMMONING JURORS
· Jury Summoning Officer has special copy of electoral register, ie names of persons under 18 or over 70, marked.
· Jury Summoning Officer makes random list of up to 150 people.
· People summoned to attend for jury service; notice sent out explaining grounds for ineligibility, disqualification and excusal.
· Jury Summoning Officer may question people to determine if they are qualified for jury service.
· Jury Summoning Officer prepares lists (called panels) of jurors for various court rooms.
· A jury of 12 selected by ballot from the panel in open court.
· A new computer summoning system is being put into operation between September - November 2000 (See LCD Press Notice, Reducing the Trials of Jury Service).

JURY VETTING
Two types of jury vetting have been authorised:
· The checking of criminal records for convictions (R v Mason [1980] 3 All ER 777); and
· The checking of Special Branch and Security Services records in cases involving national security and terrorist cases (Attorney-General's Guidelines in Practice Note [1988] 3 All ER 1086).

CHALLENGING JURORS
CHALLENGING THE ARRAY
The defendant has the right to challenge the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way.

CHALLENGING FOR CAUSE
The defendant and prosecution have the right to challenge all or individual jurors on the following grounds:
· juror is not qualified to serve;
· juror is biased;
· juror may reasonably be suspected of bias.
The issue is then tried by the judge.

PROSECUTION RIGHT TO 'STAND BY' JURORS
The prosecution may also require any numbers of jurors to "stand by", ie not to sit on the jury unless there are insufficient members of the panel to make up a full jury.

DEFENCE RIGHT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
Before 1989, the defence could challenge up to three jurors without giving any reason.

CRITICISMS OF THE SELECTION OF JURIES
See Jacqueline Martin, The English Legal System, for:
1. Use of the Electoral Register
2. Multi-racial juries are not allowed (R v Ford (1989) but also note the Runciman Commission (1993))
3. Disqualified jurors have been sitting
4. Too many discretionary excusals leads to an unrepresentative jury
5. The prosecution's right of 'stand by' was kept even when the defendant's peremptory challenge was withdrawn

I found this about juries. As I have said imbeciles cannot be on a jury. There are safeguards in place. Also problems (which no one denies). I disagree with

5. The prosecution's right of 'stand by' was kept even when the defendant's peremptory challenge was withdrawn

as this stacks the cards against the defence. If any side should have an advantage, it's the defence imo. The whole premise of justice in Britain is innocent until proven guilty.

[Guderian]

Don't poeple have to pass certain criteria (not sure what they are) before they are allowed to server as jurors?

My opinion is that the sucess rate of the jury more than makes up for it's flaws, and there is always apeals for those who are not satisfied.

[Spiff]

Its not like the jury tackles the legal issues, they simply decide on a balance of probabilities if the facts presented are true or not, and thats only for solemn procedure in any case. If you actualy read a law report youll see the judge practicaly holds their hand all the way through, and its the judge(s) (a lot of important cases have multiple judges) who decide what facts are allowed before the jury. And then theres appeals too..

In Scots law anyway