Should juries be scrapped ?

[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.

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?

Absolutely and then they used to assassinate the judges as well, so their hands were tied, desperate times desperate measures etc. Which forced the authorities to fight fire with fire, the alleged shoot to kill policy and of course internment.

But for me it's the principle of law we have in this country that's important, that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in open court by his peers.

When you start getting into terrorist, mobster, gangland trials then perhaps a rethink may be the order of the day. We've seen it in Italy with mafia trials with whole families of people involved on behalf of the state being targeted.

But for the "run of the mill" not guilty Court listings on a Monday morning in Burnley or Bury or Southampton, for a trial over whether the defendant broke someones nose in a pub fight on a night out, or did the defendant steal a dvd player from someones house etc, for me the jury system is fine and works perfectly well.

As I've said earlier if they drop a huge bollock the defendant can always appeal the conviction, the judge will know whether they got it right or not as he see's the big picture, well unless he's fast asleep like a judge recently was. lol.

 

[yerwot?]

how do we protect jurors from ''brilliant'' barristers who look for any way posslbie, relevant or not, to discredit the opposition. Playing semantics is their stock in trade.[ rebekka brooks anyone]
If the insistence on non-disclosure of ''previous'' was dropped, a lot of cases would not need a jury as a guilty piea would be entered. As things stand a serial offender has nothing to lose by pleading innocent. I suspect the silks would fight this tooth and nail.

 

[aguero93:20]

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?

Absolutely and then they used to assassinate the judges as well, so their hands were tied, desperate times desperate measures etc. Which forced the authorities to fight fire with fire, the alleged shoot to kill policy and of course internment.

But for me it's the principle of law we have in this country that's important, that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in open court by his peers.

When you start getting into terrorist, mobster, gangland trials then perhaps a rethink may be the order of the day. We've seen it in Italy with mafia trials with whole families of people involved on behalf of the state being targeted.

But for the "run of the mill" not guilty Court listings on a Monday morning in Burnley or Bury or Southampton, for a trial over whether the defendant broke someones nose in a pub fight on a night out, or did the defendant steal a dvd player from someones house etc, for me the jury system is fine and works perfectly well.

As I've said earlier if they drop a huge bollock the defendant can always appeal the conviction, the judge will know whether they got it right or not as he see's the big picture, well unless he's fast asleep like a judge recently was. lol.

Special Criminal Court here is a panel of senior judges instead of a jury, it was set up to deal with the paramilitary organisations (IRA, PIRA, INLA etc) and is also used for gangland/organised crime to stop intimidation of Juries.

 

[stony]

This is just the sort of thread that Blue Silk normally makes a brief appearance.

pun intended

 

[bluegirl74]

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.

I agree 100% with this post.
And, if I recall, anyone with legal training is ineligible for jury duty due to the fact that too much knowledge of the law can actually prevent you from making an objective decision.

 

[Rascal]

I see nothing wrong with the BM approach to justice


Every fuckers guilty so kill/castrate/maim according to crime

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

The major problem I have found with juries is that they consider the potential sentence that someone they convict may get, when that is not their role. Thats for the judge to do later. Many juries cannot square off the fact that someone may end up in prison as a reault of their decision and that means they do not listen to the evidence and decide according to it.

 

[cupidstunt]

This is just the sort of thread that Blue Silk normally makes a brief appearance.

pun intended

Calling Rumpole ...

 

[law74]

in two cases i have been involved in in the past few years when the jury are selected, before they are sworn in, the witnesses for the defence and prosecution are required to stand up in court, if a member of the jury know one (or more) of the witnesses then they are stood down, one such event occured when a member of the jury lived close to one of the prosecution witnesses and in the other case a member of the jury said they knew a prosecution witness (despite the witness being from 100 miles away and never having been to that city before).
as has been said before it is the best system for more serious offences there is, flaws and all