|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Fundamental deficit in understanding" - jury causes Vicky Pryce retrial.
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Blame the judge, who is tasked with ensuring the case is properly presented so the jury can make a reasonable decision. ....
I don't know about Canada. I suspect there is a difference between Quebec and the rest. But not in this country, he or she isn't. In a criminal case, that is the prosecution's job. The judge's role is to see fair play, to decide matters of law, and then advise the jury what they should take into account when they make up their mind.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
That post above which seems to be suggesting that the number of females on juries might have something to do with the situation is the second I have seen - the other was much more explicit. Perhaps women should be prevented from becoming barristers and judges as well?
Not knowing what the other reference you are referring to is (a source might be nice - if it was Newsnight don't bother though, its always been a second rate programme that should have been scrapped after the libel it came out with) i can't pass comment on that, but the post above onthis thread deals specifically with the make up of the jury as opposed to the abilities of women to sit on a jury... Over 50% of the jury being women is not representative of wider society by any stretch which, to me, seems to be the point of the post above rather than some form of sexism that you seem to have taken it to be.
Sergius, I did think about providing a link, and decided not to give someone overtly sexist, and accused of it by others in that place, the satisfaction of attracting others to read him. However, it was on a message board at the BBC which will be shut next week, and a whole thread was started to suggest that women were the problem with that jury.
I think ken made a suitable comment here.
And obviously juries before the reforms to move the duty of service from solely property owners did not reflect the population either.
On Question Time, the issue of the age of jurors was raised. When I served, there was someone in one of the trials who was rather younger than the rest of us, and did not wholly grasp the ramifications of what was doing on. He wasn't a problem, though. A greater number of him might have been.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
@Cliffdweller
I don't think I was referring to you (certainly not you alone). In any case, I think you're right that this could have led to a miscarriage of justice had a mistrial not been declared. In the United States, failure to properly instruct the jury is a common argument on appeal, and can be grounds for overturning a conviction. It happens regularly, often for remarks not too dissimilar from what the judge said here.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
The first time I had to rearrange a lot of my business life to be available at court. We went through all the training on the first morning, then sat around until mid-afternoon. The court usher then came in and said: "That's it, you can go home and do not need to come back." I assume that the defendant had decided to plead guilty. It was a huge waste of time, effort and money for all concerned.
Probably not. The fact that there was a jury-- the fact that trial is about the proceed-- is what spurs the settlement. Even tho it feels wasteful, your service probably aided the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
I have been called for jury service twice. In the UK, you are told to expect to serve for two weeks, but it might get extended if a trial runs over that period.
In So. Cal. that used to be the system. We've started a new system of "one trial or one day". You are given a day when you are required to show up for service-- and (as noted upthread) there are very few allowable excuses. You will be there.
They then have 8 hours to find a use for you. If you are selected for a jury you will serve the entire course of that trial-- whether a day, a week, or longer. If not, at the end of the day, you are free to go. If you are selected for a trial that runs less than a week or even less than a day (as in your example upthread), you are free to go.
I've found it has plusses and minuses. You don't know obviously in advance if you'll be chosen for not, so no way of knowing whether to arrange to be gone a week or only a day. But it does mean you won't spend a week cooling your heels. You either get used or you don't. Your name does seem to come up more frequently under this system-- about once every 2 years here.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: I honestly can't understand how people blaming the judge. Yes, the judge's job is to ensure that the jury CAN make a reasonable decision. That's different from being able to reach into their heads and MAKE them do it.
Part of the judge's responsibility is to give them the tools they need to ensure the jury can do their job-- in part, by providing reasonable and non-snarky responses to questions like "what is reasonable doubt?"
Judges who have said anything other than 'reasonable doubt is a doubt is reasonable' have been hauled over the coals in appeal courts, precisely because that is the law and not some other bunch of words that may or may not quite be synonyms.
There is nothing 'snarky' about saying "the law doesn't allow me to give you some alternative way of putting it". Because that's exactly what the law says. The test is reasonable doubt. Not slight doubt. Not significant doubt. Not real doubt. Reasonable doubt is what it is, and it's up to the jury to figure out, as a question of fact, whether they think any doubts they have are reasonable ones.
You go ahead and find another definition. If you know what the word 'doubt' means and you know that the word 'reasonable' means, find a general principle to explain what 'reasonable doubt' means that uses other words.
[ 22. February 2013, 00:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: I honestly can't understand how people blaming the judge. Yes, the judge's job is to ensure that the jury CAN make a reasonable decision. That's different from being able to reach into their heads and MAKE them do it.
Part of the judge's responsibility is to give them the tools they need to ensure the jury can do their job-- in part, by providing reasonable and non-snarky responses to questions like "what is reasonable doubt?"
Judges who have said anything other than 'reasonable doubt is a doubt is reasonable' have been hauled over the coals in appeal courts, precisely because that is the law and not some other bunch of words that may or may not quite be synonyms.
There is nothing 'snarky' about saying "the law doesn't allow me to give you some alternative way of putting it". Because that's exactly what the law says. The test is reasonable doubt. Not slight doubt. Not significant doubt. Not real doubt. Reasonable doubt is what it is, and it's up to the jury to figure out, as a question of fact, whether they think any doubts they have are reasonable ones.
You go ahead and find another definition. If you know what the word 'doubt' means and you know that the word 'reasonable' means, find a general principle to explain what 'reasonable doubt' means that uses other words.
As said before, something much like the definition Jon in the Nati offered above is commonly a part of jury instructions here in the US. Doing so is certainly not grounds for dismissal, in fact, as noted above, failure to provide that sort of instruction may be grounds for appeal.
As always, there may be a cross-pond difference.
[ 22. February 2013, 01:04: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What Jon posted is fine. The conclusion that this means 'reasonable doubt' is a legal term of art with a special meaning isn't, though.
Because all that that text does is point out all the things that it doesn't mean. It doesn't give you some special, secret meaning of the words that is different from their dictionary definitions.
I don't see why you would be happy with effectively saying "reasonable doubt is doubt based on reason" but not happy with "reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable".
[ 22. February 2013, 01:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What Jon posted is fine. The conclusion that this means 'reasonable doubt' is a legal term of art with a special meaning isn't, though.
Because all that that text does is point out all the things that it doesn't mean. It doesn't give you some special, secret meaning of the words that is different from their dictionary definitions.
I don't see why you would be happy with effectively saying "reasonable doubt is doubt based on reason" but not happy with "reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable".
No one is asking for some gnostic secret meaning. Jurors would simply like to have clarification of what the limits of "reasonable" (a quite subjective term) entails. The definition Jon posted-- which, as I said, is quite similar to jury instructions I have received-- does define it in terms of the negative, but goes far beyond the way you characterized it above or what the snarky judge provided:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof beyond any imaginary or frivolous doubt. Reasonable doubt is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice; instead, it is based on reason and common sense, and logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. It is not enough that the accused is 'probably' guilty.
Again, I've been on several juries, have always received similar instructions, and would say we always needed instructions similar to this.
[ETA Code - DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 22. February 2013, 05:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
A quick google search reveals several standard jury instructions, including:
Conneticut:
The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture.1 It is not a doubt raised by anyone simply for the sake of raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance.2 It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other person who might be affected by your decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence.3 It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison and careful examination of the entire evidence.4
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty.5 The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in your minds, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.6
Florida:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
Mass:
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge(s) made against him (her).
What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The term is often used
and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true.
I have told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.
It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead,the evidence must convince you of the defendant’s guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence.
This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[ETA Code - DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 22. February 2013, 05:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Traveller:
[qb]
In So. Cal. that used to be the system. We've started a new system of "one trial or one day". You are given a day when you are required to show up for service-- and (as noted upthread) there are very few allowable excuses. You will be there.
They then have 8 hours to find a use for you. If you are selected for a jury you will serve the entire course of that trial-- whether a day, a week, or longer. If not, at the end of the day, you are free to go. If you are selected for a trial that runs less than a week or even less than a day (as in your example upthread), you are free to go.
Sounds like the system we have here in New York (or at least Kings County), except people here only have to physically show up if called into pre-trial questioning, or want to be excused.
You're given a code on the summons. You phone the county courthouse or go to the county website, punch in the code and they tell you if you're needed or not. No schlepping across town and sitting around all day only to find out you won't be used. It's a good system.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life.
That's not the case in Canada, where you come from, or in the UK. In Canada it hasn't been the case for many decades. In the UK, which is where we're talking about, it hasn't been the case for 10-15 years, at least, but possibly for many more.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
I have been excused jury service twice on the grounds of not having recovered from being raped in my own home. (I attached a letter from my GP in support of my request).
I wish there was some equivalent service I could do as I regard jury service as a civic duty -just not one I would be capable of doing.
I do volunteer for 10 hours a week at a primary school though.
Huia
[ 22. February 2013, 03:45: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Cliffdweller, do you not see how many times all those examples of 'what reasonable doubt means' simply say what ISN'T reasonable?
That is not, in any normal sense, defining the word. It's like going into a fruit shop and explaining to someone what an apple is by pointing to everything BUT an apple and saying "that isn't an apple".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orfeo , what is clear is that Green v R sets out the law here, but that the development of the law has been different in some, if not all, US jurisdictions and perhaps in Canada as well.
There was a reference upthread to judges reaching their decisions in private. That is true to the very limited extent that a judge will often reserve the decision and write it out of court. But that decision is the delivered in court, at least to the parties. The judge must give clear and cogent reasons for a decision - see Soulemezis v Dudley . If those are not given, the decision may be set aside on appeal. Sometimes, decisions are restricted at least for a brief period. For example, a decision in relation to a procedural matter in a criminal trial may be given only to the parties until the trial itself has been completed. It is then made available publicly. Often, matters involving children are normally delivered in such a manner that the child cannot be identified. Otherwise, the rule is that decisions are public.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
My bottom line on the jury system is, if I'm ever in court I want to be heard by a dozen of the common people of England, not by some port-swilling public school pensioner in a wig.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
It is evident from the transcript and questions that the judge had given the jury written advice on 'reasonable doubt' which he felt the law prevented him from expanding on.
The Judicial Studies Board's Crown Court Bench Book - Directing the Jury (PDF 3413kb) states that: quote:
The prosecution proves its case if the jury, having considered all the evidence relevant to the charge they are considering, are sure that the defendant is guilty. Further explanation is unwise.
If the jury are not sure they must find the defendant not guilty.
Note: Being sure is the same as entertaining no reasonable doubt. See Archbold 4-384/385; Blackstone F3.37-39, for a discussion of terms.
They refer to the case of R v. Majid [2009] which illustrates the problem of judges trying to give the jury more help with 'reasonable doubt'.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
Thanks.
That would suggest that if the jury were arguing about 'reasonable doubt', they weren't addressing the specifics of the case before them because reasonable doubt wasn't the standard to which they should have been working - e.g. they were trying to find her not guilty on some grounds other than what the defence was arguing, and which would constitute 'reasonable doubt'.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Its a crap analogy. The people doing the "operation" are the judges and lawyers and police and prison officers and so on. All very highly trained (we hope)
You're prepared to trust an unelected, biased, masonic ridden, institutionally racist, misogynist elite to do the job for you?
There are way more bent coppers and judges than there are thick jurors. I wouldn't trust the judiciary on anything even if I could see and hear all they do ..... as for the Police well, personal experience suggests too mnay are in it for the thrill of a bit of aggro or looking after number 1
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
]You, and Adeodatus and Yam-pk to boot, all seem to have this weird idea that as soon as someone becomes an 'unofficial' person - a jury member - they magically develop different qualities as a human being from an 'official' person - a judge.
Where did you get that ideaz from? I not only don't believe it, I specifically said the opposite in the post you quoted from.
quote:
]
So to have you all treating juries as some great thing that has powers of perceptions and incorruptibility lacked by mere judges seems distinctly weird.
No, I still don't see where you are getting this from. Are you mistaking me for someone else? Anyway, yourirrelevant are entirely refuted in my poosting that you quoted without reading, so I won't repeat it.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Its a crap analogy. The people doing the "operation" are the judges and lawyers and police and prison officers and so on. All very highly trained (we hope)
You're prepared to trust an unelected, biased, masonic ridden, institutionally racist, misogynist elite to do the job for you?
There are way more bent coppers and judges than there are thick jurors. I wouldn't trust the judiciary on anything even if I could see and hear all they do ..... as for the Police well, personal experience suggests too mnay are in it for the thrill of a bit of aggro or looking after number 1
Er.... um.... Oh well....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Cliffdweller, do you not see how many times all those examples of 'what reasonable doubt means' simply say what ISN'T reasonable?
That is not, in any normal sense, defining the word. It's like going into a fruit shop and explaining to someone what an apple is by pointing to everything BUT an apple and saying "that isn't an apple".
Did you not see where I said
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The definition Jon posted-- which, as I said, is quite similar to jury instructions I have received-- does define it in terms of the negative...
That would be a clue that I noticed they were defining it in the negative.
But this isn't a semantics lesson. The point is that all of the jury instructions that have been posted-- both mine and Jon's-- do clarify the term, even if they do so by saying what it is not. And that's what juries are asking for.
Because in Real Life this isn't about scoring rhetorical points. It's about people's lives and freedom.
[ 22. February 2013, 14:42: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
Thanks.
That would suggest that if the jury were arguing about 'reasonable doubt', they weren't addressing the specifics of the case before them because reasonable doubt wasn't the standard to which they should have been working - e.g. they were trying to find her not guilty on some grounds other than what the defence was arguing, and which would constitute 'reasonable doubt'.
I think it's entirely possible for a jury to be confused/ seek clarification in more than one area/issue.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Marital coercion, where it is available to be plead (it is not in every jurisdiction) would be an affirmative defense, meaning it has to be plead and proved by the defense. The standard for affirmative defenses is that they must be proved 'by the preponderance of the evidence.' This is much lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard (basically a 51% standard). The pleading of an affirmative defense is one of the few times that a defendant is ever legally required to prove something in a criminal trial.
Thanks.
That would suggest that if the jury were arguing about 'reasonable doubt', they weren't addressing the specifics of the case before them because reasonable doubt wasn't the standard to which they should have been working - e.g. they were trying to find her not guilty on some grounds other than what the defence was arguing, and which would constitute 'reasonable doubt'.
I think it's entirely possible for a jury to be confused/ seek clarification in more than one area/issue.
If Jon is correct (and I think he is) that marital coercion is an affirmative defense for which the defendant has the burden of proof, then I can understand the jury being confused. Consider questions 6 & 7 that they asked and the judge's response:
quote:
6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence did not bring witnesses from the time of the offence such as au pair, neighbours? 7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
"There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence. On the contrary, there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all."
"You must not as I have now emphasised many times, speculate about what other witnesses will have not been called might have said or draw any inferences from their absence."
No burden on the defendant to prove anything??? But if she is asserting an affirmative defense, then there IS a burden on her to establish it. By telling the jury that she did not have to, the implication to the jury was that the burden was on the prosecution to "disprove" the affirmative defense that the defendant had not established. That then does raise the question of what we mean by "reasonable doubt" in that context: can you have a reasonable doubt arising from an asserted affirmative defense that was not established by the defendant but which the prosecution did not dis-prove? Especially when the judge has told you that the defendant did not need to prove anything?
While I still think that the jury was confused by the difference between what constitutes an inference and what constitutes speculation, this portion of the questioning suggests that the jury was unclear about who had what burdens of proof--and unfortunately the judge's response to Questions 6 & 7 just added to their confusion.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Without having heard the judge's summing up or seeing the written directions he gave the jury, it is rather hard to assess the legitimacy of the ten questions they raised, or the fairness of his responses to them. After some Googling, I have now found the judge's directions to the jury. I think these are the oral directions, I'm not sure whether there were additional written directions, though there was clearly also a bundle of papers for the jury.
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Without having heard the judge's summing up or seeing the written directions he gave the jury, it is rather hard to assess the legitimacy of the ten questions they raised, or the fairness of his responses to them. After some Googling, I have now found the judge's directions to the jury. I think these are the oral directions, I'm not sure whether there were additional written directions, though there was clearly also a bundle of papers for the jury.
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
hmmm... interesting that while it is quite detailed in some points, it offers absolutely no help in the areas they raised, and gives the same non-definition of "reasonable doubt". It would be useful to know if there is (contrary to the practice in most other jurisdictions we've seen) some legal barrier to providing clarification on that point, or simply the judge's own reluctance/ resistance. In any event, it is again clear why the jury was confused.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Given the lengths I have to go to explain somethings to colleagues in my line of work - I am quite prepared to believe that some juries would have found those instructions very confusing; even though they are logically expressed.
It took me an hour - with diagrams and a worked example - to explain the concept of a normal distribution and a confidence interval to professional non-graduate staff, and some of them still can not apply or explain the concept independently.
My consistent feedback at work over the past ten years, from collegaues and managers, is that I am good at teaching and explaining concepts. It could be me, I accept that, but I think it is more likely that long chains of abstract reasoning can be difficult to follow if you haven't spent quite a long time learning the skill.
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Judges are given a strong steer that they should not try to help a jury with the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. From my earlier post quote:
The prosecution proves its case if the jury, having considered all the evidence relevant to the charge they are considering, are sure that the defendant is guilty. Further explanation is unwise.
(The Judicial Studies Board's Crown Court Bench Book - Directing the Jury (PDF 3413kb))
In the directions the judge tells the jury that quote:
The standard of proof that the Prosecution must achieve before you could convict is simply this – the prosecution must make you feel sure of guilt
and then goes on to point out that making the jury 'sure' is the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt; quote:
that is the same as, but no more than, the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
In his response to their subsequent question he tells them that the words are ordinary English words. Perhaps he might have added that they should be understood in their ordinary English sense, but I don't know if that would have helped.
[ 22. February 2013, 16:15: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Judges are given a strong steer that they should not try to help a jury with the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. From my earlier post [QUOTE]The prosecution proves its case if the jury, having considered all the evidence relevant to the charge they are considering, are sure that the defendant is guilty. Further explanation is unwise.
Yes, but if you have been following the thread, you will see that we have already presented several examples to demonstrate that this is in fact NOT the standard in many, many jurisdictions, and in fact, that many (most?) have specified jury instructions that provide much more clarity re the definition. So the question is what sorts of barriers were in place in this particular jurisdiction. As I said in my immediate prior post.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
]In his response to their subsequent question he tells them that the words are ordinary English words. Perhaps he might have added that they should be understood in their ordinary English sense, but I don't know if that would have helped.
No, it certainly would not. However, something like the language provided in the many examples we have provided from various jurisdictions would.
[ 22. February 2013, 17:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Without having heard the judge's summing up or seeing the written directions he gave the jury, it is rather hard to assess the legitimacy of the ten questions they raised, or the fairness of his responses to them. After some Googling, I have now found the judge's directions to the jury. I think these are the oral directions, I'm not sure whether there were additional written directions, though there was clearly also a bundle of papers for the jury.
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
hmmm... interesting that while it is quite detailed in some points, it offers absolutely no help in the areas they raised, and gives the same non-definition of "reasonable doubt". It would be useful to know if there is (contrary to the practice in most other jurisdictions we've seen) some legal barrier to providing clarification on that point, or simply the judge's own reluctance/ resistance. In any event, it is again clear why the jury was confused.
It seems clear enough to me:
quote:
It is you, not me, who decide, for example, what evidence you accept as being truthful and reliable (whether in whole or in part), or what evidence you reject as being untruthful or unreliable (whether in whole or in part). Where you do find evidence to be truthful and reliable, it is you, not me, who decide what, if any, reasonable common-sense conclusions to draw from that evidence. Indeed the ultimate question of fact in relation to the Defendant, as to whether she is guilty or not guilty of the charge that she faces, is entirely a matter for you, not me.
and
quote:
The standard of proof that the Prosecution must achieve before you could convict is simply this – the prosecution must make you feel sure of guilt (that is the same as, but no more than, the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt).
In other words, its the jury's job to decide what is reasonable, not the judges.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It took me an hour - with diagrams and a worked example - to explain the concept of a normal distribution and a confidence interval to professional non-graduate staff, and some of them still can not apply or explain the concept independently.
That's about as long as it took our university lecturers to explain it to us in our introductory-statistics-for-scientists courses. With diagrams and worked examples. And some of us still couldn't apply or explain the concept independently. Maybe that's just how long it takes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Quite, but I don't think it is more complicated than what the judge was trying to lay out in his original directions to the jury. But they are apparently supposed to take it and run with it without a problem.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Viewing the broad picture, it is now understandable why the jury was so confused and I would not state that they were abnormally stupid. Also, for the reasons BroJames has discussed, I think the judge was limited in how much he could say to straighten them out. It is an unfortunate situation, but it happens.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I am interested to note that it is not just the (experienced) judge, but also the prosecutor who have raised doubts about this particular jury.
Actually, I'd phrase that the other way around. The prosecutor puts out a case that the prosecutor believes is solid and the jury does not come back with a conviction. The prosecutor grumbles about the jury. Naturally. I have met plenty of attorneys who lose a jury trial and immediately start grumbling about how the jury just didn't understand the attorney's brilliant legal arguments, etc. That's common. File under "grapes comma sour."
What is unusual in this case is that the judge criticized the jury. Even granting that the judge may have felt that the jury was wrong-headed on this, I am not sure that it was appropriate for a judge to make such public comments. Sure, back in chambers, gripe to the other judges about them, but don't make it public! How would you like to be the next jury sitting with that judge? Awkward!
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So the question is what sorts of barriers were in place in this particular jurisdiction.
What I tried to make clear above is that in this jurisdiction judges are advised/directed only to tell the jury that "they must be sure that the defendant is guilty." They are warned that they shouldn't explain further - " Further explanation is unwise." Maybe in the light of this case that guidance will be revised. (Similar guidance to judges is given in Scotland (s 2.1.3 para 2 on p.8))
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Viewing the broad picture, it is now understandable why the jury was so confused and I would not state that they were abnormally stupid.
But surely all the other juries that judge has briefed have been told the same thing? They've coped. Presumably, given how (as others upthread have shown) judges are limited in how much defining they can do, other judges issue a similar briefing. Hundreds of juries have understood without asking enough questions to make the judge think they just haven't got it - maybe this one particular jury was just, er, exceptional?
As to mentioning it in public, it's public money spent on the trial, I guess the judge had to give reasons, so he gave the reasons.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
... What is unusual in this case is that the judge criticized the jury. Even granting that the judge may have felt that the jury was wrong-headed on this, I am not sure that it was appropriate for a judge to make such public comments. Sure, back in chambers, gripe to the other judges about them, but don't make it public! How would you like to be the next jury sitting with that judge? Awkward!
It must be very difficult to be anything other than caustic if you get asked,
quote:
Jury: Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?
Some of the other questions are a bit more complex, but that is the clincher that self-identifies oneself as stupid. Against that one, it is appropriate for the judge to make public comments, and it is a good thing that they should be reported - just in case there is anyone else who gets called for jury service who might not understand that basic point.
As some Shipmates have commented, one senses the foreman was fairly exasperated as well.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
But surely all the other juries that judge has briefed have been told the same thing? They've coped.
But as discussed above, this wasn't a typical case. It had the extra confusion of an affirmative defense that lay at the heart of the case and complicated the issue of burden of proof and (apparently) left the jury wondering who was to prove what and what they (the jury) could impute from that (getting back to the inference/speculation distinction). It has been a bit of a red herring to suggest that the jury's only difficulty was understanding what "reasonable doubt" was. As even a cursory review of the multiple questions that they asked shows, there were numerous inter-related points that were confusing them.
Not all cases are the same and the fact that other juries on other cases could render a decision on other facts is not particularly relevant. By the same token, other juries have also failed to reach decisions in cases and new trials have been ordered. It is not as if this is an aberrant fluke. It is just that this one caught the media attention.
And I think the judge could have "explained" by simply stating that the jury was unable to reach a verdict and leave it at that. Like I said, it is not like it is the first time that something like this happened.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Some of the other questions are a bit more complex, but that is the clincher that self-identifies oneself as stupid.
To my mind, one of the weaknesses of the jury system is that it does tend to idealize the 'common man' and his (now her) ability to apply 'common sense' to a situation. It is not completely untrue, but it depends on your point of view. If you think that the entire system is corrupt (judges, attorneys, legislatures who write laws, etc.) then you might think that the jus' plain folk on the jury are some kind of check against that. On the other hand, if you think that most people aren't really that smart, and common sense is not all that common, then you might feel differently.
It would be very wrong to think that all potential jurors are simpletons; they surely are not. But not every potential juror is terribly bright either, and moreover they are not trained in the law and trials usually do involve fairly complicated legal concepts. It may happen that a jury goes astray because its members can't understand the relevant law. It really does happen, and we ought not to think that it doesn't.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Viewing the broad picture, it is now understandable why the jury was so confused and I would not state that they were abnormally stupid.
But surely all the other juries that judge has briefed have been told the same thing? They've coped. Presumably, given how (as others upthread have shown) judges are limited in how much defining they can do, other judges issue a similar briefing. Hundreds of juries have understood without asking enough questions to make the judge think they just haven't got it - maybe this one particular jury was just, er, exceptional?
Actually, I would say that the many examples we were able to find of jurisdictions mandating jury instructions that DO contain clarification of the term "reasonable doubt" would suggest that the term is often confusing and needs clarification. If in fact this jurisdiction restricts the judge's ability to do that (I find the passage that was quoted unclear... but perhaps I'm just, er.. what's the term? exceptional) they seem to be out of step with many, perhaps most, other jurisdictions. fwiw.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
What is unusual in this case is that the judge criticized the jury. Even granting that the judge may have felt that the jury was wrong-headed on this, I am not sure that it was appropriate for a judge to make such public comments. Sure, back in chambers, gripe to the other judges about them, but don't make it public! How would you like to be the next jury sitting with that judge? Awkward!
Exactly.
As I said before, I'm sympathetic. Probably in all our jobs we have to contend with irritating people who ask irritating questions that have already been answered or put onerous demands on us-- whether they're clients, managers, students, parishioners, or customers. I'm sure that every judge has a grab-bag of stories of dimwitted juries who took far too long deliberating a simple matter and took up far too much of the court's time.
That's why God invented pubs. There's probably one around the corner form the courthouse, with a cutesy name like "grounds for appeal" (no, that's a coffeehouse) or "approach the bench" and decorated with old gavels and law books. It exists for precisely that purpose-- for beleaguered judges to go hang out after work and gripe about jurors or attorneys or bailiffs or whatever (the bailiffs have their own bar, around the other corner and across the street, for griping about judges-- and you know they do).
But you don't do it in a public forum. Very unprofessional.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
On the plus side, it's been a gift for satirists... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The Now Show: BBC Radio 4
(Friday 22nd February)
(Actually, the bit about this case makes quite a few of the points made on this thread, and it's quite funny, as is the rest of the show.)
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life.
That's not the case in Canada, where you come from, or in the UK. In Canada it hasn't been the case for many decades. In the UK, which is where we're talking about, it hasn't been the case for 10-15 years, at least, but possibly for many more.
John
I would appreciate knowing the source of this re Canada. In my province, provincial court judges and Queen's Bench judges certainly all appear to be appointed for life. These are the judges the public has the most contact with. I cannot find any information to support that they are not. The same judges hearing cases seem to continue after appointment until retirement. They do move to higher courts and then back down, but that is all I can determine.
[ 23. February 2013, 04:28: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Once upon a time judges in Canada were indeed appointed for life, as were senators. Sometime in the 1960s, a retirement age of 75 was set for judges and senators.
It may be that you have run across judges who dies before 75, which is not all that unusual.
Some judges, having retired at 75, may be appointed supernumery judges to relieve pressure on the courts -- that is not a matter of right, but a choice by the chief justice of the province. Supernumery judges may preside at a limited number of trials, or none, depending on demand. THeir appointments are likely to be terminated at any point, at the will of the chief justice -- who may also choose, if the supernumery shows signs of being unreliable, not to give the judge any work.
Retired judges seem also to be used on commissions and the like, but they are not doing so as judges.
It is possible that there is no retirement age set for justices of the peace, but they aren't judges.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
My view is that the jury system should be abolished. Nevertheless, I've been reflecting on the prosecution of Oscar Pistorius in South Africa, and I do think ken has a point here.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Juries are there to act as a block on what the courts can get away with. Basically we don't let the government lock ypou up unless someone can persuade some normal people that you deserve it. Seems like a good idea to me. We should have more juries, not less.
Pistorius will not face trial by jury, which was abolished in the 1960s - he will be tried before a judge and two assessors appointed by the judge, whose role is to consider the evidence and present the judge with their findings. The assessors are legally trained.
Now it is true that ken is wrong to say that juries are a block - that takes a very slanted view as to how their role evolved. He is also wrong when he says that judges are part of the government. They aren't - although I think it is fair to say that as officers of one branch of the State - and in matter of fact appointed by the government - they tend to be familiar with the thinking of the other branches.
The process of selecting a jury is not controlled by the the judge or the state in any other form - it is controlled partly by random process and partly by defence counsel. That process demonstrates that imposing a conviction on a person is not something purely done by the State (in its judicial capacity) to a private person, but by the public at large as represented in the jury. Notwithstanding the problems inherent in juries, e.g. unrepresentative or stupid jurors, it does on a general level give the message that a criminal has been judged to be so - as ken says - by normal people.
Another thing to note about the Pistorius prosecution is the amount of public comment being allowed by the court, considering that the matter is sub-judice. I assume that courts in SA don't really mind media comment because they can safely assume that judges and assessors will not be improperly influenced by public comment on the case, knowing it not to be evidence. Whether one considers this a good thing depends, I suppose, on one's views of free speech and its responsible exercise.
Having said that, in the Internet era, it seems to me that the jury system is becoming iconic but quant - like pounds, shillings and pence, and perhaps ought to be dispensed with now.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tbwtg
Apprentice
# 17486
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
My bottom line on the jury system is, if I'm ever in court I want to be heard by a dozen of the common people of England, not by some port-swilling public school pensioner in a wig.
[ 23. February 2013, 21:52: Message edited by: tbwtg ]
Posts: 5 | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tbwtg
Apprentice
# 17486
|
Posted
Struggling to edit this first post within the timeout period -
Originally posted by tbwtg:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
My bottom line on the jury system is, if I'm ever in court I want to be heard by a dozen of the common people of England, not by some port-swilling public school pensioner in a wig.
Only thought I had about the upset in this case, rather than the earlier misjudged comments about 12 housewives, was whether the obscure questions were coming from one or more Pakistani Muslim immigrants or their descendants (perhaps a poorly-educated woman, perhaps a poor English speaker, perhaps a man with a lower view of women than even the housewife-posters here, perhaps someone with a view that it's only necessary to speak the truth to other Muslims).
I do wonder whether it would be possible to get a dozen of the common people of England together in Bradford or somewhere similar, though members of large local Asian communities may have more ways to outwit summonses for jury dury than the rest of the population.
This isn't just a simple immigrant-bashing comment, but a genuine query - how do you deal with "ethnicity" issues to organise effective juries in places with a large non-native population like London, Bradford, etc.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Once upon a time judges in Canada were indeed appointed for life, as were senators. Sometime in the 1960s, a retirement age of 75 was set for judges and senators.
It may be that you have run across judges who dies before 75, which is not all that unusual.
Some judges, having retired at 75, may be appointed supernumery judges to relieve pressure on the courts -- that is not a matter of right, but a choice by the chief justice of the province. Supernumery judges may preside at a limited number of trials, or none, depending on demand. THeir appointments are likely to be terminated at any point, at the will of the chief justice -- who may also choose, if the supernumery shows signs of being unreliable, not to give the judge any work.
Retired judges seem also to be used on commissions and the like, but they are not doing so as judges.
It is possible that there is no retirement age set for justices of the peace, but they aren't judges.
John
Okay. This misses the point that I was making, and I was thinking actually of being appointed until retirement not until the day they die when I posted about being appointed for life - these people have far too much power and need to have more taken from them, with more input from average people who generally have the capacity to make decisions, even as obfuscated by legal procedures invented by people who get rather rich doing it all.
This! This! This:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
My bottom line on the jury system is, if I'm ever in court I want to be heard by a dozen of the common people of England, not by some port-swilling public school pensioner in a wig.
[ 24. February 2013, 07:02: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
No prophet, I think you are off-beam on this one. The reason why, in civilised states, it is made difficult to remove judges is to protect the public from an overbearing state which would otherwise be very tempted to sack judges who didn't do as they were told and habitually decide in the state's favour. That would obviously include ensuring that those who the state's police force prosecutes, are found guilty.
Even an implicit and rarely implemented threat of loss of office is a very good inducement to toeing the line.
This was argued at length in the C17. It has rarely been questioned in reputable states since, but quite a lot of disreputable ones have rejected the principle on the grounds that judges must be accountable to, and implement, the will of the people as represented by the dictatorship of the proletariat exercising it on their behalf.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It has rarely been questioned in reputable states since, but quite a lot of disreputable ones have rejected the principle on the grounds that judges must be accountable to, and implement, the will of the people as represented by the dictatorship of the proletariat exercising it on their behalf.
"Marxist" dictatorships aren't the only disreputable states. Quite a lot of disreputable ones have rejected the principle on the grounds that judges must be accountable to the uber-wealthy capitalist/corporate elite who have turned such governments into fascist corporate states.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anglican't: quote:
... I wouldn't be surprised if juries are mainly made up of women (who may work part time or not at all) and the unemployed.
You have already been called on this by Ken and Anselmina, so all I will say in response is that I am a housewife who works part-time. I am also a graduate with three postgraduate professional qualifications and a business owner.
Being female and/or unemployed does not automatically make a person 'deficient in understanding'. Nor does being a non-graduate; I would be happier trusting myself to a jury made up of people like my sister than a jury made up of businessmen and bankers. Right now she is one of these full-time housewives you are happy to sneer at, but she was running her own business at the age of 19.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tbwtg:
S
This isn't just a simple immigrant-bashing comment, but a genuine query .
I don't believe you.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tbwtg:
Only thought I had about the upset in this case, rather than the earlier misjudged comments about 12 housewives, was whether the obscure questions were coming from one or more Pakistani Muslim immigrants or their descendants (perhaps a poorly-educated woman, perhaps a poor English speaker, perhaps a man with a lower view of women than even the housewife-posters here, perhaps someone with a view that it's only necessary to speak the truth to other Muslims).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
Given the set of questions asked, I suspect the last resort of a bunch of reasonable people to a middle aged rules lawyer in their midst.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tbwtg
Apprentice
# 17486
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
Given the set of questions asked, I suspect the last resort of a bunch of reasonable people to a middle aged rules lawyer in their midst.
OK, I stand corrected. The set of questions actually asked do seem to be a good bit more literate than those reported second-hand in the press and new headlines. AS Chris says, maybe some reasonable people trying to escape from a rules lawyer in their midst.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
