Jury in Lawsuit

[Aristedes]

Didn't really know where to put so I put it here.

Thing is, I have to do a speaking exercise for school about the pro's of a Jury in a suite of law (my mate has to do the contra's). Now I thought, maybe you guys could share your opinions about a jury, since it (at least in Belgium where I live) consists out of randomly picked civilians who don't know anything about law etc... Share your opinions, both pro and contra and give some arguements why.

And please; don't go like 'this is like asking to make your task for you' because, next to the fact you ARE helping me, it is an interesting subject to talk about anyway.

Greetings

[thelionheart]

can we give cons or is it just pros ?

[Aristedes]

... Share your opinions, both pro and contra and give some arguements why....

Reading. It's a blessing

[Phier]

I can't speak for the 3rd world, but in the US I think the most important reason for a jury is the concept of jury nullification. Sometimes justice requires thinking about intent and circumstances beyond a yes or no question.

Reading. It's a blessing

When you are begging, its best not be a jerk about it.

[Vizsla]

I’m not sure if this applies outside of the UK but...
Judges are the best argument for the existence of juries.
I’ve met a few, in a non-professional capacity, and they all seemed to be ludicrously out of touch with normal people’s lives.

[justicar5]

By picking a random jury, you in theory negate the chance of people coming into the trial having already made their minds up, or having a vested interest in a certain verdict.

[conon394]

but in the US I think the most important reason for a jury is the concept of jury nullification. Sometimes justice requires thinking about intent and circumstances beyond a yes or no question.

You know I don't often agree with Phier but he is spot on here - the Law is not always just and the Jury nullification is a critial chance for justice to trump the letter of the law. Its unfortunate however that too many American juries don't even know they have the option...

[Aristedes]

Could you briefly describe what this Jury Nullification is? I don't really understand what wiki says about it My English ain't perfect y'know

And @Phier: I was having a laugh.

[Phier]

Could you briefly describe what this Jury Nullification is? I don't really understand what wiki says about it My English ain't perfect y'know

And @Phier: I was having a laugh.

Easy example.

Father is sexually abusing his daughter for years. One day he comes home from work and his now adult daughter shoots him as he walks in the door in the head.

Obviously its premeditated murder.

The jury, despite the evidence, can still say she is not guilty.

Its not the best example, but easy to grasp.

[Thanatos]

The basis ideal is that the jury can if it chooses render a verdict that is not according to the facts of the law and the crime.

An example from literature take Victor Hugo's Jean Valjean imprisoned for stealing bread for a starving family. Presumably that was the letter of the law and in the US if such a harsh statue did exist the officers of the court (prosecutors, judge etc) are bound uphold and execute the law. The Jury however could even if the facts are clear and the law as well – 'steal bread go to jail for a long time', simply ignore that and return a not guilty verdict because they deemed the law unjust, unfair, in this particular instance.

It provides no lasting Precedent just that in a particular time and place the jury decided the to not find a verdit based only on the law. Although obviously if juries begin routinely nullify a law it can more or less render a particual law something of a dead letter.

Easy example.

Father is sexually abusing his daughter for years. One day he comes home from work and his now adult daughter shoots him as he walks in the door in the head.

Obviously its premeditated murder.

The jury, despite the evidence, can still say she is not guilty.

Its not the best example, but easy to grasp.

This is what I do not understand. Obviously it is more than easy to see that the justifications for these two people were for good reasons. The man stole bread to feed his starving family, and the woman shot the man because he was sexually abusing her.

But how in the heck are they both not guilty? The man still stole the bread, and the girl shot her father dead. I mean, you can say that the man did it out of necessity, and the girl did it out of self-defense and whatnot, but they're still guilty of what they did.

This is the part that confuses me.

[Phier]

This is what I do not understand. Obviously it is more than easy to see that the justifications for these two people were for good reasons. The man stole bread to feed his starving family, and the woman shot the man because he was sexually abusing her.

But how in the heck are they both not guilty? The man still stole the bread, and the girl shot her father dead. I mean, you can say that the man did it out of necessity, and the girl did it out of self-defense and whatnot, but they're still guilty of what they did.

This is the part that confuses me.

They are guilty. What the jury is basically doing is forgiving them based on the circumstances.

Lets say your state has mandatory sentencing. A very minor offense is going to put someone behind bars for 10 years if guilty despite all indications that he was putting his life in order. The jury decides to find him not guilty.

[justicar5]

This is what I do not understand. Obviously it is more than easy to see that the justifications for these two people were for good reasons. The man stole bread to feed his starving family, and the woman shot the man because he was sexually abusing her.

But how in the heck are they both not guilty? The man still stole the bread, and the girl shot her father dead. I mean, you can say that the man did it out of necessity, and the girl did it out of self-defense and whatnot, but they're still guilty of what they did.

This is the part that confuses me.

What phier said, both are technically guilty, but the jury decides that they do not deserve to be punished and as such declares them not guilty.

[conon394]

The basis ideal is that the jury can if it chooses render a verdict that is not according to the facts of the law and the crime.

An example from literature take Victor Hugo's Jean Valjean imprisoned for stealing bread for a starving family. Presumably that was the letter of the law and in the US if such a harsh statue did exist the officers of the court (prosecutors, judge etc) are bound uphold and execute the law. The Jury however could even if the facts are clear and the law as well – 'steal bread go to jail for a long time', simply ignore that and return a not guilty verdict because they deemed the law unjust, unfair, in this particular instance.

It provides no lasting Precedent just that in a particular time and place the jury decided the to not find a verdit based only on the law. Although obviously if juries begin routinely nullify a law it can more or less render a particual law something of a dead letter.

[Aristedes]

Thanks, I get it now

[thelionheart]

juris might be fooled into aquitting a criminal.

[Phier]

juris might be fooled into aquitting a criminal.

So?



That can happen regardless of the idea of Jury Nullification.

[thelionheart]

yes, but judges are trained not to be as easily fooled. Judges also witness many cases similar to the one at hand and can make a better judgment than randomly selected citizens who might have no idea about law. Some people are genius scientists, but when put in a position to decide whether a man is guilty or not, they are clueless.

[LegionnaireX]

yes, but judges are trained not to be as easily fooled. Judges also witness many cases similar to the one at hand and can make a better judgment than randomly selected citizens who might have no idea about law. Some people are genius scientists, but when put in a position to decide whether a man is guilty or not, they are clueless.

The idea behind a jury is that a concensus must be formed in order to conclude the case. No one person has the power to change the course of the defendant's life. Granted, the judge still holds the right to sentence the convicted.

History is marked by imperfect trials in which either the judge or the jury intentionally or unintentionally reached the wrong verdict. Life's not perfect.

[thelionheart]

The idea behind a jury is that a concensus must be formed in order to conclude the case. No one person has the power to change the course of the defendant's life. Granted, the judge still holds the right to sentence the convicted.

History is marked by imperfect trials in which either the judge or the jury intentionally or unintentionally reached the wrong verdict. Life's not perfect.

why not have more judges ?

[Phier]

why not have more judges ?

While the floundering legal industry in the US would love that for economic reasons, there are both economic and political reasons why placing the law out of the citizens hands is bad.

Added even with areas that vote for judges, no one really knows enough. We actually researched our judges, turned out two of them had legal troubles, one left the scene of an accident (from the circumstances I'd say to go sober up) yet all were retained.