Should juries be scrapped ?

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Re: Should jury's be scrapped ?

At least we don't face the prospect of being judged by bonkers ex-pats - that really would be taking the piss.
I love all this 'I wouldn't like a jury to consist of anyone who isn't as clever as me' logic.
The whole idea of a twelve person jury is that it is supposed to be made up of random folk from as diverse a spectrum of backgrounds as possible, not just MENSA candidates.
Even bright folk have been known to get things wrong on occasion.

Funny this. The transfer forum and capital punishment threads should tell you all you need to know about random folk.

That's actually a fair point - thankfully most folk off the Transfer forum and the hang 'em brigade probably wouldn't be able to find the court on their best day on this planet, and would turn up on the wrong day anyway.

 

[BigOscar]

It has always seemed odd to me that you get judged by people with no understanding of the legal system. Surely they need to know the law to judge whether I have broken it or not? Then you have the fact that this is probably the first time they've ever been in this situation, so they have no context or experience as to how plausible/good a defence is, so surely they are significantly more prone to being blinded by fancy lawyer tricks and the like? Not to mention the amount of shit the average person sees on american TV and assumes is the law in this country.

For me, I'd far rather be judged by someone who knows what they are doing, has experience of doing the job and has experience of the tricks that lawyers use.

 

[aguero93:20]

It has always seemed odd to me that you get judged by people with no understanding of the legal system. Surely they need to know the law to judge whether I have broken it or not? Then you have the fact that this is probably the first time they've ever been in this situation, so they have no context or experience as to how plausible/good a defence is, so surely they are significantly more prone to being blinded by fancy lawyer tricks and the like? Not to mention the amount of shit the average person sees on american TV and assumes is the law in this country.

For me, I'd far rather be judged by someone who knows what they are doing, has experience of doing the job and has experience of the tricks that lawyers use.

The judge is there to adjudicate, to keep the legal personnel in line and to clarify points of law to the jury. Having solicitors and barristers on juries would be a disaster, they'd be compromised from the get go, by having prejudices for or against the prosecution/plaintiff or the defendant.

 

[BigOscar]

It has always seemed odd to me that you get judged by people with no understanding of the legal system. Surely they need to know the law to judge whether I have broken it or not? Then you have the fact that this is probably the first time they've ever been in this situation, so they have no context or experience as to how plausible/good a defence is, so surely they are significantly more prone to being blinded by fancy lawyer tricks and the like? Not to mention the amount of shit the average person sees on american TV and assumes is the law in this country.

For me, I'd far rather be judged by someone who knows what they are doing, has experience of doing the job and has experience of the tricks that lawyers use.

The judge is there to adjudicate, to keep the legal personnel in line and to clarify points of law to the jury. Having solicitors and barristers on juries would be a disaster, they'd be compromised from the get go, by having prejudices for or against the prosecution/plaintiff or the defendant.

Put it this way, I'd rather have a chef cook my meal than have some random person off the street give it a go while the chef watched and tried to give pointers.

For the record, I never said I wanted solicitors or barristers on the jury, I wouldn't want a jury at all.

 

[york away to this!]

It has always seemed odd to me that you get judged by people with no understanding of the legal system. Surely they need to know the law to judge whether I have broken it or not? Then you have the fact that this is probably the first time they've ever been in this situation, so they have no context or experience as to how plausible/good a defence is, so surely they are significantly more prone to being blinded by fancy lawyer tricks and the like? Not to mention the amount of shit the average person sees on american TV and assumes is the law in this country.

For me, I'd far rather be judged by someone who knows what they are doing, has experience of doing the job and has experience of the tricks that lawyers use.

surely not...

 

[smudgedj]

I think it depends - if I was guilty of a crime I'd prefer a jury (I only need to convince one of them) but if I was innocent I'd just prefer a Judge as he 'shouldn't' get blind sided by the prosecution.

 

[RandomJ]

I was on a jury and I didn't like how most of them were more concerned with getting it over with and getting home than the actual case. They had all decided the moment we sat down and I tried to go over the details of the case in detail again and they were just sat there arms folded unwilling to budge. It's a flawed system but I can't think of a better alternative as giving the power to just one judge or a panel of legal people who also have their own prejudices and agendas doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Henkeman]

The strength of the jury system is that you are tried by your peers. It's the very essence of it. The jury is incredibly powerful - they can do whatever they like and are a strong defence against the authority of the state. Judge based decisions can be influenced. The jury system is not about a detailed knowledge of the law, it is about deciding the guilt or otherwise of an accused person. And also deciding how reasonable the prosecution itself is. Older people here might remember the Clive Ponting case, a civil servant who blew the whistle on information about the Falklands War when the government were flat out lying. He was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, and was absolutely guilty as hell, without any question. The jury quite simply refused to convict - as is their right. An extreme example, but the point is that juries are about providing justice, not following the law, and it's not always the same.

Yes, it's flawed. Every system is flawed. This one is less flawed than most.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

The strength of the jury system is that you are tried by your peers. It's the very essence of it. The jury is incredibly powerful - they can do whatever they like and are a strong defence against the authority of the state. Judge based decisions can be influenced. The jury system is not about a detailed knowledge of the law, it is about deciding the guilt or otherwise of an accused person. And also deciding how reasonable the prosecution itself is. Older people here might remember the Clive Ponting case, a civil servant who blew the whistle on information about the Falklands War when the government were flat out lying. He was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, and was absolutely guilty as hell, without any question. The jury quite simply refused to convict - as is their right. An extreme example, but the point is that juries are about providing justice, not following the law, and it's not always the same.

Yes, it's flawed. Every system is flawed. This one is less flawed than most.

Wasn't it one of the fundamental principles of the Magna Carta which was signed in 1215. Not a perfect system like you say but better than the Dip lock courts you used to get in Ireland!! There's always a chance of a right to appeal if they get it totally wrong, and that is a panel of Judges that decide your fate.

Not perfect but it's been tried and tested for nearly eight hundred years.

 

[Henkeman]

The strength of the jury system is that you are tried by your peers. It's the very essence of it. The jury is incredibly powerful - they can do whatever they like and are a strong defence against the authority of the state. Judge based decisions can be influenced. The jury system is not about a detailed knowledge of the law, it is about deciding the guilt or otherwise of an accused person. And also deciding how reasonable the prosecution itself is. Older people here might remember the Clive Ponting case, a civil servant who blew the whistle on information about the Falklands War when the government were flat out lying. He was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, and was absolutely guilty as hell, without any question. The jury quite simply refused to convict - as is their right. An extreme example, but the point is that juries are about providing justice, not following the law, and it's not always the same.

Yes, it's flawed. Every system is flawed. This one is less flawed than most.

Wasn't it one of the fundamental principles of the Magna Carta which was signed in 1215. Not a perfect system like you say but better than the Dip lock courts you used to get in Ireland!! There's always a chance of a right to appeal if they get it totally wrong, and that is a panel of Judges that decide your fate.

Not perfect but it's been tried and tested for nearly eight hundred years.

The Diplock courts did highlight one of the weaknesses of it I suppose - they were terrible, but what else could they do at the time when juries were persistently nobbled?