Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
Yes is the answer. Along with apostrophes in plurals.
Yes is the answer. Along with apostrophes in plurals.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should juries be scrapped ?
- Thread starter Bill Walker
- Start date
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
No, of course not.
As others have said, it's far from perfect, but is the least worst of the options available.
No, of course not.
As others have said, it's far from perfect, but is the least worst of the options available.
jimharri
Moderator
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
Should jury's what be scrapped?
Should jury's what be scrapped?
TGR
Well-Known Member
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
End of thread.
tidyman said:It isn't a perfect system.
One doesn't exist.
But it's better than any alternative I know of.
End of thread.
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
When I was on a jury, I was lucky in that all ther others were intelligent and cared about the case.
But then I saw some of the other jurors in the selection room and wouldn't like seeing some of them on a jury if I was being tried.
There should be a simple test to make sure you know what you're doing first.
When I was on a jury, I was lucky in that all ther others were intelligent and cared about the case.
But then I saw some of the other jurors in the selection room and wouldn't like seeing some of them on a jury if I was being tried.
There should be a simple test to make sure you know what you're doing first.
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
I've served twice, heard seven cases in all. There were some incidents that made me wonder if the system was entirely safe, such as the man who was insistent on being the foreman, and he delivered the wrong verdict.
In the same case, two people made their minds up at the start of the case, over a point of law that the judge had to explain to the jury at least twice. (What it means for a person to be classed as 'defective' in law). They totally misunderstood the meaning. They refused to debate the case. They spent two days with their chairs withdrawn, just talking to each other.
When it became clear that we would not reach a unanimous decision, the judge said he would accept a majority of 10-2. So we were debating to convince the remaining ten of this guy's guilt, or else to persuade eight of his innocence. One by one the jurors switched to innocent, purely because it was the only way we would get out of there anytime soon, and not really based on the facts of the case.
Despite this experience, I believe the system to be adequate, on the whole.
I've served twice, heard seven cases in all. There were some incidents that made me wonder if the system was entirely safe, such as the man who was insistent on being the foreman, and he delivered the wrong verdict.
In the same case, two people made their minds up at the start of the case, over a point of law that the judge had to explain to the jury at least twice. (What it means for a person to be classed as 'defective' in law). They totally misunderstood the meaning. They refused to debate the case. They spent two days with their chairs withdrawn, just talking to each other.
When it became clear that we would not reach a unanimous decision, the judge said he would accept a majority of 10-2. So we were debating to convince the remaining ten of this guy's guilt, or else to persuade eight of his innocence. One by one the jurors switched to innocent, purely because it was the only way we would get out of there anytime soon, and not really based on the facts of the case.
Despite this experience, I believe the system to be adequate, on the whole.
Bill Walker
Well-Known Member
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
judging by what you just told us, its shite
Eli Panic said:I've served twice, heard seven cases in all. There were some incidents that made me wonder if the system was entirely safe, such as the man who was insistent on being the foreman, and he delivered the wrong verdict.
In the same case, two people made their minds up at the start of the case, over a point of law that the judge had to explain to the jury at least twice. (What it means for a person to be classed as 'defective' in law). They totally misunderstood the meaning. They refused to debate the case. They spent two days with their chairs withdrawn, just talking to each other.
When it became clear that we would not reach a unanimous decision, the judge said he would accept a majority of 10-2. So we were debating to convince the remaining ten of this guy's guilt, or else to persuade eight of his innocence. One by one the jurors switched to innocent, purely because it was the only way we would get out of there anytime soon, and not really based on the facts of the case.
Despite this experience, I believe the system to be adequate, on the whole.
judging by what you just told us, its shite
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
But we still have the best Engineer.
bgblue said:I agree with nimrod, engineers are very clever people,
The rest of the post is bollocks though :)
But we still have the best Engineer.
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
That was just one case, where if anything, the defendant was favoured, but we still reached a majority verdict. All of the other cases were properly debated except one, when the judge ordered a mistrial on the basis of lack of evidence.
The incorrect guilty pronouncement was swiftly corrected by the way.
nimrod said:Eli Panic said:I've served twice, heard seven cases in all. There were some incidents that made me wonder if the system was entirely safe, such as the man who was insistent on being the foreman, and he delivered the wrong verdict.
In the same case, two people made their minds up at the start of the case, over a point of law that the judge had to explain to the jury at least twice. (What it means for a person to be classed as 'defective' in law). They totally misunderstood the meaning. They refused to debate the case. They spent two days with their chairs withdrawn, just talking to each other.
When it became clear that we would not reach a unanimous decision, the judge said he would accept a majority of 10-2. So we were debating to convince the remaining ten of this guy's guilt, or else to persuade eight of his innocence. One by one the jurors switched to innocent, purely because it was the only way we would get out of there anytime soon, and not really based on the facts of the case.
Despite this experience, I believe the system to be adequate, on the whole.
judging by what you just told us, its shite
That was just one case, where if anything, the defendant was favoured, but we still reached a majority verdict. All of the other cases were properly debated except one, when the judge ordered a mistrial on the basis of lack of evidence.
The incorrect guilty pronouncement was swiftly corrected by the way.
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?
12 Angry Men !
12 Angry Men !