Trial without jury is here.......
Discussion
I read an artcile by Richard Dawkins in which he stated that (apparently) juries make more incorrect verdicts than judges alone. His logic was if you're guilty it's better to have a jury (as you might get off) whereas if you're innocent it's better to have just a judge (as it's more likely the judge will come to the correct verdict).
Dr_Gonzo said:
I read an artcile by Richard Dawkins in which he stated that (apparently) juries make more incorrect verdicts than judges alone. His logic was if you're guilty it's better to have a jury (as you might get off) whereas if you're innocent it's better to have just a judge (as it's more likely the judge will come to the correct verdict).
It's easier to instill doubt in the mind of 12 people who've never had many dealings with criminals, than a judge or magistrate who's heard every excuse in the book.Dr_Gonzo said:
I read an artcile by Richard Dawkins in which he stated that (apparently) juries make more incorrect verdicts than judges alone. His logic was if you're guilty it's better to have a jury (as you might get off) whereas if you're innocent it's better to have just a judge (as it's more likely the judge will come to the correct verdict).
Isn't the whole point of the jury the fact that you are being judged by your peers. How can a jury be 'wrong' if they are the voice of he people, and ultimately it is society that deems what is acceptable or not (I know reality is a bit different, but you get my point).PJ S said:
So is this a non-story, or is the answer not to mask the jurors' faces/identity such that tampering can't be done to them or their families?Remote video viewing of the trial?Sat behind one-way glass?Both easier to implement that security on them and their families.
Bless your innocent outlook on life. You really think concealing an identity is that simple?What stops the accused associates following jurors home? Or intimidating court staff into providig idetities?Terzo123 said:
Dr_Gonzo said:
I read an artcile by Richard Dawkins in which he stated that (apparently) juries make more incorrect verdicts than judges alone. His logic was if you're guilty it's better to have a jury (as you might get off) whereas if you're innocent it's better to have just a judge (as it's more likely the judge will come to the correct verdict).
He's spot on. I've seen some ridiculous acquittals for individuals who couldn't be more guilty - If i were ever to be charged with anything, i'd take my chances with a jury every time. At the end of the day, members of the public in general do not want to be responsible for sending people to prison and this plays on them when returning verdicts.It's a huge responsibility and some people are just not up to the job.
There is an argument that professional jurors should be employed and not random members of the public
mrmr96 said:
PJ S said:
So is this a non-story, or is the answer not to mask the jurors' faces/identity such that tampering can't be done to them or their families?
Remote video viewing of the trial?
Sat behind one-way glass?
Both easier to implement that security on them and their families.
Bless your innocent outlook on life. You really think concealing an identity is that simple?Remote video viewing of the trial?
Sat behind one-way glass?
Both easier to implement that security on them and their families.
What stops the accused associates following jurors home? Or intimidating court staff into providig idetities?
As for staff intimidation - perhaps, but I don't see it to be honest.
Maybe I am a tad naive, never having been selected.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Dr_Gonzo said:
I read an artcile by Richard Dawkins in which he stated that (apparently) juries make more incorrect verdicts than judges alone. His logic was if you're guilty it's better to have a jury (as you might get off) whereas if you're innocent it's better to have just a judge (as it's more likely the judge will come to the correct verdict).
Isn't the whole point of the jury the fact that you are being judged by your peers. How can a jury be 'wrong' if they are the voice of he people, and ultimately it is society that deems what is acceptable or not (I know reality is a bit different, but you get my point).Dr_Gonzo said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Dr_Gonzo said:
I read an artcile by Richard Dawkins in which he stated that (apparently) juries make more incorrect verdicts than judges alone. His logic was if you're guilty it's better to have a jury (as you might get off) whereas if you're innocent it's better to have just a judge (as it's more likely the judge will come to the correct verdict).
Isn't the whole point of the jury the fact that you are being judged by your peers. How can a jury be 'wrong' if they are the voice of he people, and ultimately it is society that deems what is acceptable or not (I know reality is a bit different, but you get my point).What I'm trying to get at; The jury, your peers in society, say you're innocent. Does that not mean, therefore, that no crime was commited, since whether something is a crime or not is determined by the society?
Does that make sense? Quite hard to explain really. Obviously I'm talking from a specifically moral point of view, as in the real world crim is determined by people in Government, and society cannot choose for itself what is and is not a crime.
We've had trial without a jury for ages over here, basically in relation to all statutory offences. We still have juries for common law ones.
The bad thing about juries is that they are inconsistent, and often make their decision having taken into account something completely irrelevant and having competely disregarded all the proper evidence.
The bad thing about juries is that they are inconsistent, and often make their decision having taken into account something completely irrelevant and having competely disregarded all the proper evidence.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Dr_Gonzo said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Dr_Gonzo said:
I read an artcile by Richard Dawkins in which he stated that (apparently) juries make more incorrect verdicts than judges alone. His logic was if you're guilty it's better to have a jury (as you might get off) whereas if you're innocent it's better to have just a judge (as it's more likely the judge will come to the correct verdict).
Isn't the whole point of the jury the fact that you are being judged by your peers. How can a jury be 'wrong' if they are the voice of he people, and ultimately it is society that deems what is acceptable or not (I know reality is a bit different, but you get my point).What I'm trying to get at; The jury, your peers in society, say you're innocent. Does that not mean, therefore, that no crime was commited, since whether something is a crime or not is determined by the society?
Does that make sense? Quite hard to explain really. Obviously I'm talking from a specifically moral point of view, as in the real world crim is determined by people in Government, and society cannot choose for itself what is and is not a crime.
If I remember correctly the stat was that juries tend to have more convictions overturned than judges. So you could say they made a 'mistake' on the first verdict. This seems to be more a cost saving exercise to my mind.
The question is whether or not this will survive a HRA application (if one were made).
It's a tricky one to call though, as others have said, if you are innocent, a judge would be better, whilst if you are guilty as sin, a Jury is better.......
The question is whether or not this will survive a HRA application (if one were made).
It's a tricky one to call though, as others have said, if you are innocent, a judge would be better, whilst if you are guilty as sin, a Jury is better.......
ipsg.glf said:
elster said:
Eric Mc said:
If the jury found them innocent, how could they be guilty?
Quite easily. The result does not represent fact. It is jsut who has the best person argueing for them.
The result doesn't mean they did or didn't do something. It means they had a team who could put the case forward better than the other side. No more than that.
This is a ghastly decision; very nearly the final nail in our justice system.
Despite all the shortcomings of the Jury system, public Jury trials were created to prevent abuse of power- accused named, accuser named, twelve idiots, and the evidence and result public knowledge is much better than many countries achieve.
Despite all the shortcomings of the Jury system, public Jury trials were created to prevent abuse of power- accused named, accuser named, twelve idiots, and the evidence and result public knowledge is much better than many countries achieve.
grumbledoak said:
This is a ghastly decision; very nearly the final nail in our justice system.
Despite all the shortcomings of the Jury system, public Jury trials were created to prevent abuse of power- accused named, accuser named, twelve idiots, and the evidence and result public knowledge is much better than many countries achieve.
Yet the vast majority of cases are dealt with by Magistrates court without juries. I see this as a glorified version.Despite all the shortcomings of the Jury system, public Jury trials were created to prevent abuse of power- accused named, accuser named, twelve idiots, and the evidence and result public knowledge is much better than many countries achieve.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff