homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » "Fundamental deficit in understanding" - jury causes Vicky Pryce retrial. (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: "Fundamental deficit in understanding" - jury causes Vicky Pryce retrial.
luvanddaisies

the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761

 - Posted      Profile for luvanddaisies   Email luvanddaisies   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Vicky Pryce will now have a retrial, due to a jury who the Judge described as having a fundamental deficit of understanding (article from The Week, includes the questions the jury asked).

Surely, even if it was just through watching stuff on the telly, there should have been no need to ask some of the questions like these;

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?

Judge:"The answer to that question is firmly no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you for anyone to return a verdict except a true verdict according to the evidence."

or

quote:
Jury: Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Judge: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have already given."


or

quote:
Jury: Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, ie she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

Judge: "This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Ms Pryce does not say that any such reasoning formed any part of her decision to do what she did and the answer to this question will therefore not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case.

"I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case and thereby to reach a true verdict according to the evidence."

Obviously the press and satirists are enjoying themselves, but this jury's list of daft questions have now cost the UK however much public money it is for a retrial.

Does an event of which the Judge says
quote:
he has never come across anything like Pryce's jury during 30 years of criminal trials, while prosecuting QC Andrew Edis claimed: "This is not jury misconduct, this is not irregularity, this is a jury which has not, it appears, understood its function".

simply show bad luck at an unfortunate combination of people being picked out, or does it call into question the idea of a fair trial being one where people are tried by their peers?
Should there be some sort of test before people start their jury service, to check they have a basic level of understanding?
Does it reflect badly on us as a society when a random sample of twelve citizens comes up as being unable to understand directions and act upon them and seems unfamiliar with a basic tenet of the legal system - how a trial works?

[ 21. February 2013, 11:05: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]

--------------------
"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
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I once read a comment that the only people who do jury service are those too stupid to be able to get out of it. That's no doubt rather harsh, but 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.

I'd be reluctant to have a test set for jurors because if you're going to be tried by your peers that has to include everyone. But I don't think juries are properly representative at the moment and more should be done to ensure that men and women from the professional classes serve on juries. I don't care that they're busy, it's their civic duty.

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here in the United States, the lawyers in the case tend to pick gullible jurors on purpose. They don't WANT people that can think and reason for themselves, they want people that they can lead by the nose to the verdict they want. Heck, in most states the jury isn't even allowed to ask questions!

Makes one pine for the days when they just chucked the defendant in the duck pond to see if they floated.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I needed open heart surgery, I would not be too happy with the idea of the health service randomly picking 12 members of the public to do the operation.

How is that different from having my reputation, future well-being and moral actions 'operated on' by 12 randomly picked jurors?

Hence my deep scepticism about the jury system.

Or is that a poor analogy?

If so, why?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I once read a comment that the only people who do jury service are those too stupid to be able to get out of it. That's no doubt rather harsh, but 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.

I'd be reluctant to have a test set for jurors because if you're going to be tried by your peers that has to include everyone. But I don't think juries are properly representative at the moment and more should be done to ensure that men and women from the professional classes serve on juries. I don't care that they're busy, it's their civic duty.

Call me crazy, but I don't necessarily want to be tried by my peers. I want to be tried by intelligent people that can see through shoddy arguments and dubious evidence.

Assuming I didn't do it, of course.
[Big Grin]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think this particular case, as reported, reflects as badly on the judge as on the jury. His communication seems to have been pretty inept. Reading through the dialogue presented in the OP link, why did the judge not say, "Look. You seem to be asking, can you reach your decision based on something that was not presented in court. The answer is no, you cannot. If there was evidence that either the prosecution or defence could have presented, but didn't, then that is their problem, not yours. You may only base your decision on what you have seen and heard in this court and on any sound, reasonable inferences you can draw from that."

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Despite disagreeing with Richard Dawkins on just about everything, I think he is absolutely spot on concerning the jury system.

The problem is: how can this system ever be reformed?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It all depends on what we decide whould be the definition of 'peers' - is everyone your peer or only those who are of the same socio-economic background, educational standard etc.?

The questions asked were ridiculous, and potentially show a worrying matter that people do not understand enough about the legal system to successfully be a member of a jury, as a soicety we also need to appreciate that some form of incentive must be there to ensure those that are likely to loose the most by attending to jury service do not get out of it where possible - I think this in part a fundamental shift in the understanding of basic social rights and responsibilities, or certainly a shift to thinking solely in rights rather than responsibilities - which then means that people do not understand properly how to execute their responsibilities properly because they do not view them with the same importance as their rights.

Whilst I understand the inherent problems (both socially and legalistically) in attaching a subjects rights to their acting of responsibilities, should we, as a society, at least be open to a debate along those lines, where (picking my example outlandishly) for example, in Starship Trooper citizenship (and all, rather than some, associated rights) are only given to those who serve military service, should we consider that people only have access to the entirety of their rights as subjects in the UK based on their execution of their civic responsibilities when required...? We already do this, rightly, to an extent where we exclude criminals who have failed to follow the basic rules of our common society and failed to execute their responsibilities to the rest of society by failing to follow those rules, by regulating their freedom of association, movement and voting. Should we extend this further?

Disclaimer: The last paragraph (apart from the bit about prisoners who really should not get the vote in any way shape or form - they have failed to live up to their socia lresponsibilities in a major way and should nto have civic rights extended to them except thsoe that pertain to freedom of religion, ensuring they are fed and watered and that's about it really) represents only a thought for discussion, and is not to be considered as representative of my own thoughts on this topic at this time, since such a thing would be terribly illiberal and flies in the face of pretty much everything I hold dear.

[ 21. February 2013, 11:29: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think this particular case, as reported, reflects as badly on the judge as on the jury.

I don't agree, simply because all these questons were pretty much answered before these questions were presented either by the judge in the Jury bundles or in directing the jury when sending them out to deliberate. It is understandable that the judge is going to get a little irate with having to repeat himself on such matters whne the answer is either straightforward and logical, or has been adequately expressed previously.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Based on what the press have laid out, I would agree the judge could be more thorough. However, "as badly" is a gross overstatement, ISTM.
What reasonable person over the age of 10 would ask this?
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?



--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What reasonable person over the age of 10 would ask this?
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?


I'm guessing an exasperated jury foreman who is struggling to deal with a dim-witted jury member.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A friend of mine has just finished jury service. He and his fellows were instructed not to Google anything about the case, which he obeyed, but wondered if everyone else did. From the sound of the questions it looks as though at least some of this Jury were influenced by information not presented in Court. Is that not almost inevitable in these Web-based days?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What reasonable person over the age of 10 would ask this?
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?


I'm guessing an exasperated jury foreman who is struggling to deal with a dim-witted jury member.
Well quite. What I suspect is behind this is a jury member wondering if marriage vows that include the word "obey" count towards "marital coercion". Well, if Pryce had wanted to suggest so, then she should have done so, in court, through her lawyers. She didn't, therefore the speculation is irrelevant and should form no part of the jury's deliberation.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Newsnight had some legal minds blaming the legal minds in court for not explaining properly.

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?

What interested me about those questions was that the language - grammar, syntax - seemed at odds with the content. They were formally framed in careful language, and I suspect that they were written by someone who did not agree with the questioners, and may have wanted some help from the court with dealing with others persistently insisting on their own ideas. Isn't there something in religion about invincible ignorance?

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275

 - Posted      Profile for The Rogue   Email The Rogue   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sure there are plenty of stories around about what happens in jury rooms and many of them will be less than accurate.

The one I heard about (from someone who was there and I do believe it) was that in a child abuse case one juror announced that he/she had been abused as a child and therefore was going to vote guilty.

It concerns me that jurors bring their prejudices and mis-understandings into the jury room and if I was ever on trial I would, if I had the choice, avoid a jury trial.

However, we are in the real world, and this is the justice system we have which has been in place for centuries. In Britain (just England?), at any rate. I have no ideas on what would be better.

As suggested above, though, in this world of information and mis-information available on the internet is it time for a change?

--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?

Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What reasonable person over the age of 10 would ask this?
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?


I can imagine a situation in which it would be reasonable.
Let's imagine that the prosecution claim that the defendant travelled fourteen miles in twenty minutes on a particular make of bike. One juror is a cycling enthusiast and happens to know that you can only do twelve miles in twenty minutes on that make of bike. The defence have missed this point. Is the juror allowed to inform her fellow jurors of this, and is she or any other juror allowed to take it into consideration?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I once read a comment that the only people who do jury service are those too stupid to be able to get out of it. That's no doubt rather harsh, but 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.

OMG! They let WOMEN make decisions these days! Whatever next! Givethe poor dears the vote? Let the servants have time off on Saturdays? Teach them to read? The Empire is doomed! Civilisation will fall!

And if you want to pursue the moronically pompous assertion that unemployed people are studpider than people woth jobs, or that the "professional classes" are more intelligent than others, why noit do it it Hell where the approporiate language can be used in reply?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I needed open heart surgery, I would not be too happy with the idea of the health service randomly picking 12 members of the public to do the operation.

How is that different from having my reputation, future well-being and moral actions 'operated on' by 12 randomly picked jurors?

Hence my deep scepticism about the jury system.

Or is that a poor analogy?

If so, why?

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) 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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken
Juries are there to act as a block on what the courts can get away with.

Absolutely not.

Juries are there to do the one thing that is more important than anything else: deliver the verdict.

That is why I think my admittedly less than perfect analogy is not 'crap'.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Despite disagreeing with Richard Dawkins on just about everything, I think he is absolutely spot on concerning the jury system.

I couldn't disagree more. I think the article is typical Dawkins: ordinary people are fools, and their instincts and reason can't be trusted. Even if you agree with that - which I don't, because it's a piece of monstrous arrogance - he misses at least three points quite spectacularly.

First, he says it's dreadful that "beyond reasonable doubt" might produce different verdicts from different juries. Well of course it could - that's why it's "beyond reasonable doubt", not "beyond all doubt".

Secondly, he misses the whole point of being tried by one's peers. The point is, that you are being tried by people who aren't in the privileged position of being professional lawyers, but who bring the experience and sympathies of the amateur into a situation where an individual is fighting for his or her freedom against all the weight and machinery of the State. It's juries who deliver "not guilty" verdicts - the professionals are all pretty convinced at the outset that the defendant is guilty, or they'd never have been brought to court at all.

Thirdly, he mis-reads Twelve Angry Men as being about "authoritative and articulate speakers". It isn't. It's about precisely what we're talking about here: that jury members are supposed to leave their prejudices and speculations at the door, and decide only on the evidence as it has been presented. All that Fonda's character does in the course of the film is to bering them, one by one, back to that basic principle.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd like to speak up for juries too. The one I served on was white, middle-age / old, and largely uneducated. The accused was an asylum seeker, accused of a sexual offense, and hailing from a country with which we were, at that time, at war.

They / we gave it a good two hours chewing over before deciding on a verdict, and my bleeding-heart-liberal-self was quicker at coming to that verdict than many of the Sun readers in the room. It worked well.

I also think the questions were placed by an irate forman, faced with jury intransigence / idiocy. But he/she might have been the kind of person to jump to a kind of procedural 'let's ask the judge about that, shall we' rather than someone used to explaining gently to people why their idea is a daft one.

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449

 - Posted      Profile for bad man     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I once read a comment that the only people who do jury service are those too stupid to be able to get out of it. That's no doubt rather harsh, but 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.

I'd be reluctant to have a test set for jurors because if you're going to be tried by your peers that has to include everyone. But I don't think juries are properly representative at the moment and more should be done to ensure that men and women from the professional classes serve on juries. I don't care that they're busy, it's their civic duty.

Your source is out of date. It used to be easy for people to get out of jury service on the grounds that they had better things to do. Now, you get a deferral for a few months when you ask, you are not let off completely. And if you try and defer the second summons, you get refused.

Not only is everyone forced to do their jury service (pretty much), the categories of people exempt from jury service have been dramatically reduced, precisely in order not to skew juries against the professional classes.

Even judges have to do jury service now. The present head of the Supreme Court did jury service when he was a judge.

Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I needed open heart surgery, I would not be too happy with the idea of the health service randomly picking 12 members of the public to do the operation.

How is that different from having my reputation, future well-being and moral actions 'operated on' by 12 randomly picked jurors?

Hence my deep scepticism about the jury system.

Or is that a poor analogy?

If so, why?

I think it is a poor analogy because the jury have a distinctly limited role as judges of fact based on evidence set before them. The task of the judge and legal teams is to ensure that juries are presented only with relevant and cogent evidence, and that the strongest possible evidence is put on behalf of each side. Part of the judge's role is to point out to the jury what facts need to be proved, with what degree of confidence, if the jury are to bring in a guilty verdict. In the end the jury should be left with a set of factual questions which, having been answered, lead them to a guilty or not guilty verdict (or in Scotland not proven).

To return to your analogy, it is more like (assuming you were incapable of answering for yourself and family and friends unavailable) the health service setting out before the random panel all the pros and cons of open heart surgery, including evidence from experts about survival chances, quality of life etc. and then asking them to make the decision that you would be asked about if you were able to answer for yourself.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
luvanddaisies

the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761

 - Posted      Profile for luvanddaisies   Email luvanddaisies   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
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.

And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
Absolutely.

It seems unlikely that it could happen again often enough to get massively worried about it (although I would imagine the Daily Mail is trying that tack), given that I'd assume this was a rare happening, but are we losing the plot about our social responsibilities, as some on this thread are suggesting?
Why don't schools, colleges, universities and workplaces mimic the idea of a jury trial in serious disciplinary cases - both educating people about their wider social responsibility and giving them practise in it, as well as extending the advantage ken's pointed out of not allowing the authorities in those contexts punish someone without running it by some normal people first - or is that a stupid idea?

--------------------
"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
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Why don't schools, colleges, universities and workplaces mimic the idea of a jury trial in serious disciplinary cases - both educating people about their wider social responsibility and giving them practise in it, as well as extending the advantage ken's pointed out of not allowing the authorities in those contexts punish someone without running it by some normal people first - or is that a stupid idea?

Whilst rather supportive of this idea, it was part of the thinking, amongst other misguided notions, which led to the deplorable situation where schools think it is ok for a group of kids to interview a teacher applying for a post.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
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.

And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
It's a terrible defence, because it suggests that the court is part of the government. No it ruddy well isn't. Judges sitting without juries acquit people all the time, people that "the government" has charged with crimes. That's why they're IN court, because "the government" has brought them there.

--------------------
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
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I once read a comment that the only people who do jury service are those too stupid to be able to get out of it. That's no doubt rather harsh, but 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.

Have you ever done Jury service? I have and I can say that it is quite difficult to get an exemption. I was summoned for Jury service in Cambridge having just started a new job with a heavy training component in Bristol. I asked to be excused on those grounds. They transferred the jury service to Bristol but there was no hope of being excused. My experience was of a fairly even balance in terms of gender, age and employment. It also included people who were seriously worried about their job prospects because their work was casual and two weeks away would be detrimental. Happily for me, my own employer was very helpful and my two weeks were relatively unproblematic from a work perspective.

At the beginning of your time you receive induction which covers the basics like reasonable doubt, delivering a verdict on the evidence (which is part of the juror's oath, it's not just the judge's direction) and so on. ISTM that these jurors had not only not paid proper attention to the judge they hadn't paid proper attention to their induction. I have to say that all the juries I sat on (I was part of a jury for four cases) were diligent and careful to examine the cases that were before us and I think we reached correct decisions.

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And in fact one of the functions courts sometimes have to perform is to prevent juries from locking people up when the jury verdict can't be supported in law.

The idea that courts are eager to lock people up is just complete nonsense. Governments? Maybe.

Now tell me again about these jurors that haven't got a clue and say stupid things...

[ 21. February 2013, 13:26: 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
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
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.

And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
It's a terrible defence, because it suggests that the court is part of the government. No it ruddy well isn't. Judges sitting without juries acquit people all the time, people that "the government" has charged with crimes. That's why they're IN court, because "the government" has brought them there.
The court isn't a part of the government, but it is a part of the State - with all the resources, expertise and motives of the State. While judges are thankfully independent enough to oppose the government in many cases, what you still have in criminal courts is the State against the individual. The jury is one of the mechanisms that redresses the balance in favour of the individual.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I once read a comment that the only people who do jury service are those too stupid to be able to get out of it. That's no doubt rather harsh, but 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.

OMG! They let WOMEN make decisions these days! Whatever next! Givethe poor dears the vote? Let the servants have time off on Saturdays? Teach them to read? The Empire is doomed! Civilisation will fall!
I'm not sure having a jury of 12 housewives is really a 'jury of one's peers', which is the point I was trying to drive at. The jury pool should be diverse, and it's re-assuring to see that those with recent experience on juries believe that this problem has been turned around.


quote:
And if you want to pursue the moronically pompous assertion that unemployed people are studpider than people woth jobs, or that the "professional classes" are more intelligent than others, why noit do it it Hell where the approporiate language can be used in reply?
I don't think it is pompous to suggest that members of the professional classes might be able to get a better grasp of technical matters than, say, an unemployed labourer.

That said, although the professional may be more intelligent than the labourer, that's not to say that he has more common sense. Hence the need for a good mix.

quote:
Originally posted by ken
Juries are there to act as a block on what the courts can get away with.

I was under the impression that juries existed to decide questions of fact only - the law is solely in the hands of judges.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377

 - Posted      Profile for *Leon*   Email *Leon*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems to me that this is actually an indication of the jury system working. Usually 12 random people manage to agree (and it's very unlikely they'll all be crazy in the same way). In this occasion there is reasonable grounds for thinking the jury might have had too many crazies on, so there's a retrial.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
... I also think the questions were placed by an irate foreman, faced with jury intransigence / idiocy. But he/she might have been the kind of person to jump to a kind of procedural 'let's ask the judge about that, shall we' rather than someone used to explaining gently to people why their idea is a daft one.

Possibly there was an element of that, but they had been out quite a long time by then.

What's more disturbing is that they couldn't even reach a majority verdict. Does that mean that there were at least three who lacked the sort of practical mental capacity one would hope most of us have just to get through day to day life?

It is difficult not to get the impression that one Vicky was being judged by a jury of another Vicky, the Pollard one.


I would just add, that I don't agree with Dawkins even on this. His approach seems a symptom of so much of what he stands for.

[ 21. February 2013, 13:59: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
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.

And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
It's a terrible defence, because it suggests that the court is part of the government. No it ruddy well isn't. Judges sitting without juries acquit people all the time, people that "the government" has charged with crimes. That's why they're IN court, because "the government" has brought them there.
The court isn't a part of the government, but it is a part of the State - with all the resources, expertise and motives of the State. While judges are thankfully independent enough to oppose the government in many cases, what you still have in criminal courts is the State against the individual. The jury is one of the mechanisms that redresses the balance in favour of the individual.
Yes, it's part of the State - so we've at least got that sorted out.

But putting 'motives' in italics leaves me none the wiser as to what 'motives' you think the 3 different arms of the State share.

--------------------
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
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But putting 'motives' in italics leaves me none the wiser as to what 'motives' you think the 3 different arms of the State share.

Only that the State is not motiveless. And that when it pits itself against an individual, it has virtually infinite resources with which to pursue its motives.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But putting 'motives' in italics leaves me none the wiser as to what 'motives' you think the 3 different arms of the State share.

Only that the State is not motiveless. And that when it pits itself against an individual, it has virtually infinite resources with which to pursue its motives.
Not helping.

I find ascribing a 'motive' to ONE arm of the State problematic enough in 2 out of 3 cases. Lord knows I've read enough articles about how the notion of "Parliament's intention" is a complete fiction because it's impossible to assume that each MP who voted in favour of a Bill voted for the same reason. Half of them vote for it because a party whip told them that's what they were supposed to do.

And I certainly have a very hard time believing that the courts, as an arm of State, sit down and plan how they're going to decide the myriad of cases that come before them - especially when they play no part in choosing WHAT the cases are that come before the courts.

So when you try to hint darkly at the entire State getting together and, with one mind, gunning for an individual... it seems tremendously implausible in a functioning separation-of-powers democracy.

[ 21. February 2013, 14:41: 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
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I find ascribing a 'motive' to ONE arm of the State problematic enough in 2 out of 3 cases. Lord knows I've read enough articles about how the notion of "Parliament's intention" is a complete fiction because it's impossible to assume that each MP who voted in favour of a Bill voted for the same reason. Half of them vote for it because a party whip told them that's what they were supposed to do.

And I certainly have a very hard time believing that the courts, as an arm of State, sit down and plan how they're going to decide the myriad of cases that come before them - especially when they play no part in choosing WHAT the cases are that come before the courts.

So when you try to hint darkly at the entire State getting together and, with one mind, gunning for an individual... it seems tremendously implausible in a functioning separation-of-powers democracy.

It doesn't have to be the entire State. Suppose, in a jury-less system, my next door neighbour, a senior police officer, takes a dislike to me and wants rid of me. He brings a false charge, backs it up with false evidence. The judge is apt to think, "Here's this fine upstanding man, a pillar of his community and a servant of the State just like me, bringing a charge against this scuzzy nobody next door." Who will stand between me and the State?

But you don't have to imagine so dark a scenario. Look at the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which provides for the imposition of control orders (a.k.a house arrest) by a judge in closed session. While it's true that parts of the judiciary have ruled out certain provisions under the Act - such as the cumulative application of orders amounting to a permenent deprivation of liberty - how do we know that these orders are being applied justly, when cases have not been heard by a panel made up of members of the public?

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think this particular case, as reported, reflects as badly on the judge as on the jury.

I don't agree, simply because all these questons were pretty much answered before these questions were presented either by the judge in the Jury bundles or in directing the jury when sending them out to deliberate. It is understandable that the judge is going to get a little irate with having to repeat himself on such matters whne the answer is either straightforward and logical, or has been adequately expressed previously.
It may be understandable, but it's not permissible. Look, I sympathize-- as a college instructor I, too, get irritated when students ask the same question that I answered 2 sec. ago while they were checking their email-- a question that's clearly covered in the syllabus. It's irritating. So go for a drink after work and vent with a colleague. It doesn't excuse a failure to fulfill your professional obligation. His response re the question of "reasonable doubt" (a question that has arisen in every jury I've served on, one judges should be prepared to answer with something more than a snippy non-answer) is similar. If the jury was ill-informed about it's duties, that is his failure as much or more than theirs.

--------------------
"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
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed, cliffdweller. And I'd suggest, as a general rule of thumb, if you're having to ask what counts as a reasonable doubt, then you've got a reasonable doubt.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791

 - Posted      Profile for Yam-pk   Email Yam-pk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So when you try to hint darkly at the entire State getting together and, with one mind, gunning for an individual... it seems tremendously implausible in a functioning separation-of-powers democracy.

The Birmingham Six and The Guildford Four really would beg to differ I'm quite sure of that
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What reasonable person over the age of 10 would ask this?
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?


I can imagine a situation in which it would be reasonable.
Let's imagine that the prosecution claim that the defendant travelled fourteen miles in twenty minutes on a particular make of bike. One juror is a cycling enthusiast and happens to know that you can only do twelve miles in twenty minutes on that make of bike. The defence have missed this point. Is the juror allowed to inform her fellow jurors of this, and is she or any other juror allowed to take it into consideration?

Doesn't work as an example. In that scenario, it would be entirely proper for the juror to ask the judge at the time (or during deliberations) why that piece of evidence had not been interrogated by the defence.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Indeed, cliffdweller. And I'd suggest, as a general rule of thumb, if you're having to ask what counts as a reasonable doubt, then you've got a reasonable doubt.

Unlike his snippy response, it actually is a tricky issue. Does "reasonable doubt" mean a 1 in a million chance it was something/someone else? If the defense argues that alien space invaders deposited a clone of the defendant who committed the crime, is that "reasonable doubt" if it's technically possible? Further, there is a difference in standard of proof (at least in US) between criminal and civil trials. Most judges will have a prepared answer that gives some guidelines. It's part of the job, even if you find it irritating.

--------------------
"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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I served on a jury (murder trial) and can assure you that a definition of 'reasonable doubt' is not a stupid thing to ask form.

I can't explain why because that would be to break the law of confidentiality but we WERE asked to return to the court so that the judge could give an explanation which was very helpful.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This looks like a serious breakdown in communications between the judge and the jury, or at any rate, the foreman of the jury. If that is so, then a retrial seems right and trial by jury isn't such a bad thing after all.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jury: what is reasonable doubt?

Judge: Reasonanable doubt is anything that is reasonable.


No wonder we are in chaos.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Here in the United States, the lawyers in the case tend to pick gullible jurors on purpose. They don't WANT people that can think and reason for themselves, they want people that they can lead by the nose to the verdict they want.

I've been through voir dire (the part of the trial where you pick the jury) training. "How to pick the most gullible jurors" never came up. Do you have experience of lawyers acting this way in real life, or is this just your perception?

For me at least, presenting a trial to a jury of people who cannot think or reason would be the most frustrating exercise in the world. I worked for a district attorney one summer, and sat in on a few jury trials. One was a case of negligent child abuse. The jury found that the defendant was not guilty (probably the right call), but when we spoke with them afterwords, they said it was because they couldn't find that he was "intentionally negligent." Intent and negligence are two totally independent concepts. You charge someone with negligent behavior when there is no way to prove that there was intent. My head about exploded. The DA trying that case definitely should have explained negligence better. But that is the kind of stuff that would happen if you fished for incompetent jurors, so I would advise against that strategy if you want to keep your license.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Heck, in most states the jury isn't even allowed to ask questions!

In this state you are, and it can be helpful. Not because the jury tends to ask relevant questions, but because you can see if they are missing the point of your case.

On to the general story, this is not the first time I have heard of a jury asking if they could convict on evidence that was not presented at trial. A year or two ago, the private investigator that works in my office was working for the defense in a case of a high school teacher accused of having sex with a student. In that case, the jury asked if they could convict even if they didn't think there was enough evidence to prove that the specific instances of sexual misconduct mentioned at trial had occurred. So that is a common question.

A lot of this arises because of the special rules of evidence that apply to criminal cases. The rules are designed so that the prosecution cannot use evidence of other bad acts to convince the jury that the defendant is a bad guy. This often leaves gaps in the case, and the jury can sense that something is missing. (Another example from my summer DA internship, a DUI case where the defendant was driving drunk after his wife kicked him out of the house following an alcohol fueled domestic dispute. The domestic dispute was the subject of a second trial, so the DA was not allowed to present any evidence about the events that lead up to the defendant driving. Without that bit of evidence, it was hard to explain to the jury what was actually happening that night, and the jury as a result was quite confused about the story the DA was telling. That one resulted in a mistrial after a police officer witness accidentally mentioned the domestic dispute, but I don't think it would have resulted in a conviction.)

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm not sure having a jury of 12 housewives is really a 'jury of one's peers', which is the point I was trying to drive at.

"Housewives"? [Killing me]

You'd better turn of the JCB before the hole gets any deeper.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Unlike his snippy response, it actually is a tricky issue. Does "reasonable doubt" mean a 1 in a million chance it was something/someone else?

Especially in this case where Vicki Pryce didn't deny committing the offence, but offered a defence of 'marital coercion'. The problem as I see it is a.) 'marital coercion' is a nebulous and subjective concept, and b.) although the judge is technically correct to say the defence doesn't have to prove anything, once she's admitted that She Done It she does at least have to show a reasonable chance that it was marital coercion.

(I am actually unclear here whether she has to prove it was marital coercion (analogous to libel where if you offer a defence of 'it was justified' you have to prove it was justified) or simply demonstrate that marital coercion was a reasonable possibility.)

--------------------
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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[
And I certainly have a very hard time believing that the courts, as an arm of State, sit down and plan how they're going to decide the myriad of cases that come before them - especially when they play no part in choosing WHAT the cases are that come before the courts..

So what? How is that relevant?

I don't want my freedom to depend only on the motivations of even honest and well-meaning officials,


And you don;t need a conspiracy to make a bad decision now and again. Everyone can make mistakes. Anyone can be put in a position where they find themselves, willingly or not, doing things that maybe they shouldn't. No-one can every completely escape from the prejudices of their community, or from their own self-interest Everyone is biased. That's why we need checks and balances in courts and in government. And why everybody's interests need to be represented. Juries are one of the the ways we do that. Elections another. A little bit of democracy to lubricate things.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm not sure having a jury of 12 housewives is really a 'jury of one's peers', which is the point I was trying to drive at. The jury pool should be diverse, and it's re-assuring to see that those with recent experience on juries believe that this problem has been turned around.



And you're worried about juries of 12 housewives because this happens, or happened, how often? And bearing in mind women have, relatively speaking, only recently been admitted to jury duty anyway, precisely what kind of precedent do you think exists for there having been the 'problem' of mainly, or all, women juries?

Similarly, how frequently do juries comprised of either mainly or all unemployed people come up?

There is a world of difference between hoping there is a diversity within a jury and assuming anything else must be a nightmare preponderance of unemployed or women.

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools