UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:or
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."
quote:or
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."
quote: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.
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."
quote: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?
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".
quote: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.
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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think this particular case, as reported, reflects as badly on the judge as on the jury.
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?
quote:I'm guessing an exasperated jury foreman who is struggling to deal with a dim-witted jury member.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm guessing an exasperated jury foreman who is struggling to deal with a dim-witted jury member.
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?
quote:I can imagine a situation in which it would be reasonable.
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?
quote: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.
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?
quote: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!
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.
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) 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.
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?
quote:Absolutely not.
Originally posted by ken
Juries are there to act as a block on what the courts can get away with.
quote: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.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Despite disagreeing with Richard Dawkins on just about everything, I think he is absolutely spot on concerning the jury system.
quote:And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
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?
quote:Absolutely.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by ken:
quote: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!
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.
quote: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.
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:I was under the impression that juries existed to decide questions of fact only - the law is solely in the hands of judges.
Originally posted by ken
Juries are there to act as a block on what the courts can get away with.
quote:Possibly there was an element of that, but they had been out quite a long time by then.
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.
quote:Yes, it's part of the State - so we've at least got that sorted out.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote: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.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:And that, m'lud, is the best defence of trial by jury in four sentences that I've ever read.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Not helping.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think this particular case, as reported, reflects as badly on the judge as on the jury.
quote:The Birmingham Six and The Guildford Four really would beg to differ I'm quite sure of that
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I can imagine a situation in which it would be reasonable.
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?
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Heck, in most states the jury isn't even allowed to ask questions!
quote:"Housewives"?
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.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote:So what? How is that relevant?
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..
quote: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?
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.
quote:Too simplistic. What does 'reasonable' mean?
Originally posted by shamwari:
Jury: what is reasonable doubt?
Judge: Reasonanable doubt is anything that is reasonable.
No wonder we are in chaos.
quote: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.
I am actually unclear here whether she has to prove it was marital coercion...
quote:This is pretty good, as far as I'm concerned, and is quite similar to most jury instructions in the United States as well. It is quite wrong to say that 'reasonable doubt' is an ordinary expression with no special meaning in the criminal law context; like almost every other legal term, it is a term of art which does have special meaning.
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.
quote:One of the functions of a jury is to evaluate the trustworthiness of witnesses. It is entirely legal for a juror or jurors to disbelieve a tattooed witness based on his personal experiences or prejudices about the kind of people who get tattoos. With 12 randomly-chosen jurors, you are unlikely to get many people with the same prejudice, unless that prejudice is widely held in society (consider, for example, the differing propensities of white and black juries to convict black defendants in the US in years gone by.)
Originally posted by leo:
Too simplistic. What does 'reasonable' mean?
'My reason',for some, might be that 'he has shifty eyes and tatoos.'
quote:Which should be apparent to anyone with a secondary-school level of understanding of english. Maybe that's the same issue as in Vicky Pryce's case?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
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.
quote:Yes, in this case negligent is different.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not sure how one would 'negligently' pervert the course of justice. 'My ex-husband's penalty points suddenly attached themselves to my licence while I was looking the other way'.
Having said that, I'm also a bit puzzled by the concept of 'negligent child abuse'. That may be a difference in linguistic usage. Is it using 'negligent' more the way we would use 'neglect'?
quote: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.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:So what? How is that relevant?
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..
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.
quote:Which procedures and rules are you talking about, though? The actual laws that you can be found guilty of breaking are passed by parliaments.
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. The judge failed.
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life. Why not have a lawyer heading a panel of 3 people (could be another number of) that runs the court room, and the other 2 people be non-lawyers? For lawyers to make all important decisions, create procedures and rules only understood by them, among other problems with contemporary legal decision-making has led to great, bankruptcy-creating situations for accused people, guilt declared where there is none, and removed the seat of power in a functioning democracy to intelligentsia.
quote:It is after this that the question about what constitutes "reasonable doubt" is asked, followed by the question about reaching a verdict when there are no facts or evidence to support it.
2. In the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there is not enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time of when she signed [the penalty notice letter] to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be: not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict?
No recorded answer
3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution's case, can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so, inferences/speculation on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so, eg circumstantial evidence, lies, failure by Vicky Pryce to mention facts to the police.
"The drawing of inferences is a permissible process, speculation is not."
"You must not speculate and you could not draw safe inferences from debatable evidence because you need to be sure that your inference, you reasonable common sense conclusion, is correct.
"In this case, the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed."
quote:I note that Question 8 circles back to Question 2: the jury's feeling that there was not enough evidence as to what was subjectively in the defendant's mind at the time she signed the form. The jury wanted to know if they needed direct evidence as to her thoughts at that time or were allowed to infer/speculate what was in her mind.
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."
8. Can we speculate about the events at the time that Vicky Pryce signed the form, or what was in her mind at that time?
"The answer to that is an equally firm no. There's a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inferences."
quote:Again, this left the jury struggling to understand what the difference was between an inference and speculation. Probably that was the question that they should have asked.
9. Your honour, the jury are considering the facts provided but have continued to ask the questions raised by the police. Given the case has come to court without answers to the police's questions, please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury shall consider to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.
"You decide the case on the evidence. That means it is for you to review all of the evidence and decide which of it you consider to be important, truthful and reliable, and then decide what conclusions, common sense conclusions, you can safely draw by way of inference from that evidence."
10. 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?
"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."
quote:I meant the issue of the jury not understanding the words the court used, despite those words being common english words - not that the issue of negligence was in any way relevant to the case in point.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not sure how one would 'negligently' pervert the course of justice. 'My ex-husband's penalty points suddenly attached themselves to my licence while I was looking the other way'.
quote:I don't know what the "handwringing" you're referring to is, which may suggest you were alluding to me...
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote: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.
I am actually unclear here whether she has to prove it was marital coercion...
There is a lot of handwringing on this thread about the definition of "reasonable doubt," most of it unjustified. Still, the judge in the instant case instructed the jury very poorly as regards the reasonable doubt standard. Almost every jurisdiction has a set of standard jury instructions, which are often modified to suit the needs of a particular case and then submitted to the jury. Jury instructions from Canada, for instance, describe the concept in this way:
quote:This is pretty good, as far as I'm concerned, and is quite similar to most jury instructions in the United States as well. It is quite wrong to say that 'reasonable doubt' is an ordinary expression with no special meaning in the criminal law context; like almost every other legal term, it is a term of art which does have special meaning.
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.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote: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?"
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.
quote: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.
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. ....
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote: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?"
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote: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.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote: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?"
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.
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.
quote: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:
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".
quote:Again, I've been on several juries, have always received similar instructions, and would say we always needed instructions similar to this.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life.
quote: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'.
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.
quote:Thanks.
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.
quote:You're prepared to trust an unelected, biased, masonic ridden, institutionally racist, misogynist elite to do the job for you?
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)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
]
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.
quote:Er.... um.... Oh well....
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:You're prepared to trust an unelected, biased, masonic ridden, institutionally racist, misogynist elite to do the job for you?
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)
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
quote:Did you not see where I said
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".
quote:That would be a clue that I noticed they were defining it in the negative.
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...
quote:I think it's entirely possible for a jury to be confused/ seek clarification in more than one area/issue.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Thanks.
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.
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'.
quote: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:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I think it's entirely possible for a jury to be confused/ seek clarification in more than one area/issue.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Thanks.
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.
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'.
quote: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?
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."
quote: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.
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.
quote:(The Judicial Studies Board's Crown Court Bench Book - Directing the Jury (PDF 3413kb))
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.
quote:and then goes on to point out that making the jury 'sure' is the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt;
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
quote: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.
that is the same as, but no more than, the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
quote: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.
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.
quote:No, it certainly would not. However, something like the language provided in the many examples we have provided from various jurisdictions would.
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.
quote:It seems clear enough to me:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote: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.
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.
quote:and
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.
quote:In other words, its the jury's job to decide what is reasonable, not the judges.
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).
quote: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.
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.
quote: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."
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.
quote: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))
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So the question is what sorts of barriers were in place in this particular jurisdiction.
quote: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?
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.
quote:It must be very difficult to be anything other than caustic if you get asked,
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!
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
But surely all the other juries that judge has briefed have been told the same thing? They've coped.
quote: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.
Some of the other questions are a bit more complex, but that is the clincher that self-identifies oneself as stupid.
quote: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.
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote: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?
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.
quote:Exactly.
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!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote: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.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Further, there is far too much power given to judges, who in many cases are appointed for life.
John
quote: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.
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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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
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.
quote:"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.
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.
quote: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.
... 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.
quote:I don't believe you.
Originally posted by tbwtg:
S
This isn't just a simple immigrant-bashing comment, but a genuine query .
quote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
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).
quote: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.
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.