Juries Must Go.

[Oliver]

If they were well-informed professionals, they wouldn't be a jury of peers. The goal is not to rule based on the jury's own knowledge, but on the EVIDENCE.

As far I remember the Juries in countries that do have such a system, it's rather about irrelevant side-notes and appeal to emotion. Things like: Hey, the Witness is gay, racist, young, old, psychotic, did something wrong in his past such as: got a ticket for drunk driving, etc - and all the real evidence becomes irrelevant. That's ridiculous.

 

[The Atheist]

Let's try it this way: given that the jury system probably isn't going to be done away with anytime soon, who do YOU think is qualified to serve on one?

None.

I think I'd go with a system where lay people are selected and trained to operate as panel judges and have maybe three in each trial.

These would be people the calibre of Small Claims Tribunal Referees, which in NZ are not lawyers or judges, but lay people with training. That seems to work out ok. Whether it would with more serious cases, I don't know, but I don't see it being much worse if it were tried.

However, we have juries, in part, because we don't assume that the accused is, in fact, guilty. Therefore, I also feel that the ability to look at evidence objectively is important. Perhaps, then, it is better to not have people in a pool who consider themselves "experts". In that regard, were I on trial, I'd probably want myself as a juror, since at least I know I would do my best to understand simply because I know I'm not an expert.

That's fair, and I don;t think I've made a plea for "experts" as such, but I don't want to rely on only those who have nothing better to do, which is what happens frequently right now.

If we're going back to the topic, do you feel confident that judges are capable of understanding the same evidence we both agree I'm incapable of understanding?

Clearly.

All juries must go! Henceforth all trials will be decided by urban-dwelling, community activists based on the group-dynamic politics extant at the time; in their opinion, of course. No appeals either!

All hail the new Obama-jury and shoot the dissenters!

This makes all kinds of nonsense.

You do actually read the forum and not just hang out in the Forum Management Section? How the hell do you miss the countless idiots who have their PHD after being on this forum a year longer than me? All people are prone to falling to fallacies, ignorance, and prejudices. Having that letters after their name only means that they had the ability to assimilate technical information in one field and one field only. You can have two experts who say the exact opposite things and without the background to assimilate the technical information I would be in the same position sugarb would be.

I know quite a few people with PhDs and none of them are unemployable morons. On the other hand, I know of several unemployable morons who have served on juries.

Presumably you can justify leaving out househusbands, you sexist pig.

Hell yeah - they're MEN!

Ah, the horror of having someone of a lower social class than yourself decide something of importance. Outdated and absurd.

Not a problem to me - I am lower class. I doubt you'd manage to find a lower class than someone who went to both Papakura and Rotorua schools.

If you have an intelligent comment, please feel free to state it.

I'm surprised to see that people here are actually defending the jury system. I there's anything that I expect people in this forum to be familiar with, it's that people in general are very bad at figuring out what conclusions you can draw from a given piece of evidence. If people were good at it, this forum wouldn't even exist.

Well put.

If 80% of the population are capable of believing something with no evidence at all, I really don't want them on a jury.

I will note that a fair number of people would argue black is white if I started a thread saying black was black.

All of this can just as easily be used to justify eliminating the right to vote.

Bad analogy.

It doesn't take three months to vote and I can't think of many people who choose not to vote because the time taken to do so interferes with their lives negatively.

But as far as housewives and public servants go, I'd be happy to take their votes away. The oldies can keep voting - gotta give 'em something to keep their minds actve fopr jury service!

 

[KingMerv00]

In my opinion, the main problem is that the vast majority of jurors (as a representative subset of the normal population) are not equipped to interpret laws...

His view is that a judge is better than a jury, in that, among other things, the judge understands the complexities of the law better.

The problem with that argument is that if the law has become to complex to explain to juries we need to simplify the law rather than replace juries.

The jury doesn't need to be well informed about the law. The judge determines matters of law while the jury is determines matters of fact. All the jury needs to do is determine what happened and then follow the jury instructions.

 

[sugarb]

Okay, I like your suggestion, for several reasons. One, training of lay people...that way, technically it's still a panel of peers...only peers who have maybe had background checks and undergone in-depth interviews to determine their ability to handle emotional aspects of certain trials. Mainly, though, I think it would make the judicial system more efficient and fair. I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns about juries as they are currently handled. Training lay people would eliminate "stacking the jury", as well.

Another issue, when called for jury duty, was brought to my attention as well. When it came time for questions that could be very personal, having to sit there and honestly answer as to my ability to be objective given specific circumstances (child abuse), no, I cannot. Frankly, I don't know anyone who COULD be. I realize that some people can overcome their emotions about things that I may not be able to, however, I also realize that many people are probably not being honest when they say that they can do just that.

Admittedly, and I say this knowing it is probably wrong on my part, if someone stands before me accused of child abuse, too many things get in the way, in my mind, to be objective...and that is completely and totally unfair to someone who stands accused of, not proven to have committed, child abuse. If I, or people like me, land on that jury, then that's an injustice.

Perhaps your idea would also enable courts to free up more time to actually have trials, and it would eliminate notifications of jury duty and people having to be served for ignoring that. It's actually a very good idea...one I hadn't thought of before.

 

[The Atheist]

Okay, I like your suggestion, for several reasons. ...

Look at that; agreement in only three posts - a new record!

 

[slingblade]

No problem, I'll do it. Stay-at-home housewives are thick.
Cheers!

I'm gonna muster up the brain cell it takes to hit the ignore button. Wish me luck.

 

[Fiona]

It seems that there are a number or reasons being put forward for abolition of the jury system and that they will vary in weight between countries

We have to start with some notion of why we have juries in the first place. For me the most important reason for this is that this is the part of the system which is not wholly bound by the law. It is a very important safeguard because it means that in the day-to-day working of the judicial system there is a check on unjust law. While that is not a very common outcome in trials of any kind I would not like to be without that element. In support of that position I can think of the Clive Ponting case in England. For those who do not know this one: Clive Ponting was a senior civil servant in the uk at the time of the Falklands war. He sent classified documents to an MP concerning lies the government was telling about the sinking of a ship called the General Belgrano. Clive Ponting was quite clearly guilty. and he admitted that he sent the documents. He accepted the likely consequence of his action and expected to go to jail. He did what he did as a matter of principle and he made a defence on that basis. That defence was quite clearly inadmissable in law, and he was fully aware of that. The judge directed the jury to find him guilty and in law as it stood at the time that was correct. Nevertheless the jury at his trial found him not guilty. We cannot know the basis for that verdict, because jury deliberations are private. But the defence was based on the proposition that the public have a right to know if the government is lying and that this overrides the official secrets act. The law has since been changed in that direction and it was largely because it was recognised that juries will not convict in these circumstances.

If we had not had a jury system this man would have gone to jail. Judges are steeped in the importance of the rule of law and they are rightly expected to uphold it no matter what it says. From the perspective of the system it is for parliament to make the law and for the judiciary to apply it: and that is what judges will do. For very good reason and in most cases that will lead to the best outcome. But not always.

The jury operates from a much different perspective and they are the element within the system which allows justice to override law on some occasions.

Perhaps some do not think this is a useful or a necessary safeguard in our system. I happen to think it is because I think that closed systems have a tendency to become blind to certain considerations which seem relevant from the outside: and because they are also subject to various kinds of group think and other biases.

For example Lord Denning notoriously took the view that it was better for the state if innocent people were not released: "In 1980 Britain’s Lord Denning dismissed an appeal by the Birmingham Six on the grounds that to concede that the British police or courts had got it wrong would amount to “an appalling vista”. Put as starkly as that he is possibly in a minority. But there is no doubt that there is sometimes a tension between "law" and "order" thought the conservative tendency is to run them together. There is similarly a tension between "justice" and "order". It is not unheard of for the judiciary to uphold "order" over either of the other two where there is opportunity to do so: an that is essentially what Lord Denning was saying. He considered that maintaining confidence in the system outweighed truth and justice for the indidual. For a senior member of the judiciary that is an understandable position but it is very vulnerable to abuse. A jury goes some way to safeguarding us against that kind of thinking because they operate within a system they are not part of and have no vested interest in defending when it is getting things wrong.

It is possible there are other ways of building in that safeguard and some maybe better than the jury system. I do not think the jury is perfect but one such alternative has been proposed here: laymen trained and then forming a part of a panel of judges (if I understand The Atheists proposal correctly). I do not think that meets the problem. Such a group will inevitably become a part of the system and so the independence which a jury brings will be lost: I also have reason to believe that even trained lay people are apt to follow the lead of those who are properly qualified in a given field where those two groups sit together. I base this on the operation of the Children's hearing system here. In that system there are no legally qualified members of the decision making panel: they are all trained lay people. It is a good system for the most part. But I have seen it derailed when the panel has allowed a party to be represented by a lawyer. The panel were improperly deferential to that lawyer and it was a fight to counter that deference though in truth the lawyer knew a lot less than I did about child care law. It was not fatal: but then he wasn't very good. The point is that lay people are easily cowed by such imagined expertise: not all and we could use the training to counter that deference: but where they sit together I think it will be in play and I think the total independence will suffer. I am open to other ideas but if you accept that there is a value in the kind of safeguard outsiders bring then I would suggest the jury function is important and before we throw it out we must make sure that function is replaced by something better

The other issue raised is the composition of juries and that is not a matter of principle: it is pragmatic. Jury service in this country is compulsory but it does seem to be true that many people are finding ways to avoid it because is inconvenient for them or for financial reasons. I do not think we need to abolish it for those reasons. In the past people were perhaps more aware of the value of jury service or perhaps more civic minded. If it is true that has been lost then I think we need to foster it rather than accept the new disengagement is either inevitable or desirable. I would like to see a very strong element of compulsion coupled with no financial loss. That can be done by making a law that employers must grant paid leave for jury service. They won't like it and it will be argued that it will bring small businesses to their knees: but it won't you know

In my country there is very little challenge to jurors and I don't really know how that works here. It seems to be more common in america and I cannot understand the thinking behind that custom. For me we are trying to achieve a representative group and so random selection looks ideal: I would be glad if some of the americans here could explain the reasoning behind juror challenge because it seems to make things harder and I don't see the gain

 

[truethat]

Plus, the court has plenty of people: the prosecutor, the defender, and the judge, whose whole job is to make sure that the jury gets the relevant information.

Also, I can't say I care much for the implication that most housewives are fools.

Finally, it's not that the jury system is perfect. It's that other systems are generally even worse, justice-wise (not to mention mercy-wise).

Agreed.

 

[The Atheist]

In my country there is very little challenge to jurors and I don't really know how that works here.

Well "here" in terms of my OP is New Zealand, not America, and plenty of jurors are challenged. Our legal system is almost identical to yours, so I'd be surprised if challenges were rare.

Do you have numbers to back up your theory?

(Also, your first case is irrelevant - a jury carrying out a misprision of justice isn't a case to retain juries - it's a case to spot a really bad law. The premise could equally work the wrong way, and I'll submit Timothy Evans in exchange.)

Agreed.

I asked theprestige the same question, so maybe you could answer it while I'm waiting for him to come back.

What other systems are worse than juries?

 

[Fiona]

Well "here" in terms of my OP is New Zealand, not America, and plenty of jurors are challenged. Our legal system is almost identical to yours, so I'd be surprised if challenges were rare.

Do you have numbers to back up your theory?

There are facilities for the parties to inspect the panel and for individual members to be examined by the judge if there are doubts about their fitness to serve because of lack of proficiency in English or because of physical disability, for example deafness.[20]

<snip>

Peremptory challenges, or challenges without cause, allowing the defence to prevent a certain number of jurors from serving without giving any reason, were formerly allowed in English courts and are still common in some other jurisdictions. At one time, the defence was allowed 25 such challenges but this was reduced to 12 in 1925, to 7 in 1948 and 3 in 1977 before total abolition in 1988.[23][24]

From Wiki: see also

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...fCZAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10

ETA: that is english law: the situation is similar in Scotland

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA10,M1

prospective jurors cannot be removed easily before trial and this action requires both parties agreement

 

[truethat]

I would say that all systems that have a balance of approach are good. Yes at times we're going to have situations that fall through the cracks, but overall I think it is better to have alternatives.

Having a judge that unilaterally decides a case would be a system that would be worse than a jury.

Juries in a lot of ways require the law to be followed. Perhaps I'm biased but in presenting a case of guilt I would imagine that a judge might be inclined to trust the word of a defense attorney or a prosecutor over time. By having juries the case must be presented to a fresh perspective in each case.

I also think it helps protect against bribing.

That said I do like cases where the judge overturns a complete bungle by a jury, that reassures me that a bunch of morons aren't going to put the case through.

 

[Old Bob]

Those against a jury better stop and think. I would ruther have a panel of my own type judge me if I was suspected of crime. To throw yourself at the mercy of the Magi or Judge hoping that they are not bought or queer, what a risk. Our system in Aus. and the USA is far from perfect but way ahead of third world countries in the vain hope that the truth will prosper. As for IQ. why can't a housewife be as smart or smarter than a pen pusher? To type cast who can make a clear judgement on what we do for a career is the height of ignorance. To comprehend the court's double talk age would be a bigger factor than social standing.

 

[lionking]

I know this article is dated, but it makes a good argument for a tribunal system.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1273

 

[chillzero]

Outdated & absurd.

How a bunch of ill-informed amateurs are supposed to decide guilt & innocence has always astonished me, but things seem even worse now.

30 years ago, nearly all employers allowed employees to attend jury service on full pay. Now, it's the government and very few corporates, which leaves most juries made up of people whose compos is often not very mentis.

Must be a New Zealand thing.
Employers in the UK can't prevent employees doing service when they are called up.

Housewives, the terminally unemployable and retirees. And even worse, public servants.

I'm none of these, and my employer has 'allowed' me to go - on full pay - as I have been called up for duty this week.

 

[Alt+F4]

No problem, I'll do it. Stay-at-home housewives are thick.

Your avatar matches your attitude. This is nothing but a troll thread to insult people, right?

 

[lionking]

Must be a New Zealand thing.
Employers in the UK can't prevent employees doing service when they are called up.

It's the same in Australia. You have to have a very good reason to get out of jury duty.

But as I have said, I have more fundamental objections to the jury system.

 

[fuelair]

Plus, the court has plenty of people: the prosecutor, the defender, and the judge, whose whole job is to make sure that the jury gets the relevant information.

Also, I can't say I care much for the implication that most housewives are fools.

Finally, it's not that the jury system is perfect. It's that other systems are generally even worse, justice-wise (not to mention mercy-wise).

Actually, that is not a correct statement, the judge and defendant's attoney's job seems to be to find ways to throw out/keep from the jury pertinant information and the prosecutor's to keep away from the jury different pertinant information. Only if all verifiable information regardless of how it was obtained is allowed to the jury then no jury can possibly render a sure verdict.

 

[fuelair]

I would like to know what The Atheist would replace it with.
I am beginnng to think that The Atheist thinks that everybody in the world is an idiot..except for him.

Can't be, that would be wrong!!

 

[Senex]

I was on a jury recently during a three day trial. Everyone but one person had a job. It wasn't a great case because the decision was clear (we deliberated for a couple of hours but only five minutes was actually needed but no one wanted to be rash). However, I truly believe every member of the jury I was with was a thoughtful person. I would have been comfortable with the jurers I was with to be my jurers if I ever needed jurers (and I was innocent or was suing someone).

My experience with the jury system is the jury system works.

 

[Travis]

The problem with simply leaving justice to professionals is that eventually they stop making decisions based on evidence and start making decisions based on personal formulas.

Person comes in accused of X I will find them guilty regardless of evidence.

Person comes in accused of Y I will find them not guilty regardless of evidence.

And so forth.


Think of it in this way, who would you want deciding your fate if you were falsely accused of a crime? Back in 2000 when my little brother was set to stand trial for conspiracy to commit murder we were horrified the case would be decided entirely by a judge since my brother was a minor. There was a lot of political pressure to have my little brother put away regardless of the fact that he hadn't done anything and we knew the judge presiding over the case was not immune to that. Consequently we did everything we could to have his trial decided by a jury and not a judge we knew would convict regardless of evidence.