|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Fundamental deficit in understanding" - jury causes Vicky Pryce retrial.
|
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
