TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
merphie said:
And mine earlier, but nobody listens to monkeys. Grumble.
Thanks to all for the responses. I'm going to get drafted to discuss this topic before a Japanese audience and while I know about the U.S. system, I don't know much about the use of juries around the world.
For posters living outside the U.S., especially in common law countries, is it correct that the juries are declining in importance?
Civil juries?
Grand juries? AUP posted above that they are no longer used in Australia, anywhere else?
For posters living outside the U.S., especially in common law countries, is it correct that the juries are declining in importance?
Civil juries?
Grand juries? AUP posted above that they are no longer used in Australia, anywhere else?
In the UK there have been a number of initiatives to reduce the right to trial by jury. There are two specific instances under review at the moment:
Limiting the scope of offences subject to jury trial
Minor offences are heard by a panel of magistrates (lay people of good standing in the community) and if guilty, a punishment is handed down (typically a fine or community service). This process is quick and cheap (long waiting times and a strain on the budget for funding public defence are a real issue in the UK).
A lot of less minor offences go to trial (with all the costs and delay incurred) but the accused pleads guilty at the last moment. I think this is viewed as a legitimate defence tactic. This is soaking up money and court time.
Really complex trials
Some fraud trials involve a great deal of forensic accountancy evidence which a lay person may find very difficult to understand. The result is allegedly determined on whether the jury thinks that the defendant is "a good bloke" than by impartially assessing the evidence because the jury cannot
In these cases it is proposed that knowledgable judges assess the evidence
Because I'm a deeply unpleasant person, I'd rather trust my chances to a relatively impartial judge who is really considering points of law rather than a bunch of inbred, open mawed, mouth breathing knuckleheads they've dragged off the street.
Limiting the scope of offences subject to jury trial
Minor offences are heard by a panel of magistrates (lay people of good standing in the community) and if guilty, a punishment is handed down (typically a fine or community service). This process is quick and cheap (long waiting times and a strain on the budget for funding public defence are a real issue in the UK).
A lot of less minor offences go to trial (with all the costs and delay incurred) but the accused pleads guilty at the last moment. I think this is viewed as a legitimate defence tactic. This is soaking up money and court time.
Really complex trials
Some fraud trials involve a great deal of forensic accountancy evidence which a lay person may find very difficult to understand. The result is allegedly determined on whether the jury thinks that the defendant is "a good bloke" than by impartially assessing the evidence because the jury cannot
In these cases it is proposed that knowledgable judges assess the evidence
Because I'm a deeply unpleasant person, I'd rather trust my chances to a relatively impartial judge who is really considering points of law rather than a bunch of inbred, open mawed, mouth breathing knuckleheads they've dragged off the street.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Having done jury service earlier this year I think I can address some of the points raised here.
In the UK jury service is obligatory for anyone between the ages of 18 and 65. If you are over 65 you may be called, but can decline. Certain people are exempt, including all legal workers, anyone working in the emergency services, active military personnel and anyone with a criminal or civil conviction, the sentence for which ended within a certain time frame dependent on the crime. You can also get out of it if you are a student in full time education or if you can show that your work or career would suffer in the long term as a result.
Individual juries are 12 people selected at random from 15 sent to the courtroom. The defendant may object to any juror at the time they're selected, and if any juror recognizes anyone involved in the trial (including the lawyers) they must declare it and cannot serve on that jury.
If any juror has reason to believe that another juror is prejudiced or has ulterior motives they should inform the judge who can then dismiss the other juror. Trials can continue with fewer than 12 jurors at the discretion of the judge.
Long trials have more than 12 jurors (usually 15) in case one or more are taken ill during the trial. At the end of the trial the extra jurors do not get to consider the verdict.
Interestingly, in a UK court the jury never see the lawyers raising objections to a question or line of questioning, because the lawyers and the judge confer beforehand (and at various points during the trial) on what can and cannot be asked. The jury are never told what questions were the judge did not permit.
In the UK jury service is obligatory for anyone between the ages of 18 and 65. If you are over 65 you may be called, but can decline. Certain people are exempt, including all legal workers, anyone working in the emergency services, active military personnel and anyone with a criminal or civil conviction, the sentence for which ended within a certain time frame dependent on the crime. You can also get out of it if you are a student in full time education or if you can show that your work or career would suffer in the long term as a result.
Individual juries are 12 people selected at random from 15 sent to the courtroom. The defendant may object to any juror at the time they're selected, and if any juror recognizes anyone involved in the trial (including the lawyers) they must declare it and cannot serve on that jury.
If any juror has reason to believe that another juror is prejudiced or has ulterior motives they should inform the judge who can then dismiss the other juror. Trials can continue with fewer than 12 jurors at the discretion of the judge.
Long trials have more than 12 jurors (usually 15) in case one or more are taken ill during the trial. At the end of the trial the extra jurors do not get to consider the verdict.
Interestingly, in a UK court the jury never see the lawyers raising objections to a question or line of questioning, because the lawyers and the judge confer beforehand (and at various points during the trial) on what can and cannot be asked. The jury are never told what questions were the judge did not permit.
Lord Muck oGentry
Graduate Poster
Scot here. I've been called to jury service on several occasions, the last in the 1990s. Our system calls for 15 bods, not 12, and permits a " not proven " verdict. Unfortunately, I can't tell you anything about the quality of the juries, as I have not been permitted to serve, although I have been " balloted " more than once ( my name popped out of the hat ). The difficulty seems to be my appearance, which occasions a weary " Please sit down " from the fiscal-depute ( prosecutor ), who is ( or was ) permitted to challenge anything that appears to be able to tie its shoelaces.
Still, days out in court have not been wasted: I have heard a judge define a " reasonable doubt " as being not a fanciful or metaphysical doubt but rather a doubt of the sort that might give you pause for thought in your everyday affairs.
Still, days out in court have not been wasted: I have heard a judge define a " reasonable doubt " as being not a fanciful or metaphysical doubt but rather a doubt of the sort that might give you pause for thought in your everyday affairs.