Should we have professional jurys?

8 Oct 2008

Well sorry folks another topical thread I am sorry.
But on reading the OJ thread has made me think back to the days when I was called up for jury service.
I sat on a case and after it has always left me with a feeling of did all the jury listen to all the evidence before them. I was gobsmacked in deliberation that a few of the jury had such a completely different view of how the rest of us had heard the case. The outcome didn’t alter how I felt and I was so happy after that the judge read out he had no previous and was let off, for something that I really in my gut totally felt he was innocent for.
But there were other people on the jury that would have had this person locked up. I think that personally they felt on that day the power to be able to do this to someone.
It does go to show that to have a balance on a jury is a good thing.
But it always left me with a feeling that could there be an argument for employed and fully trained jury members?
I have totally mixed views on this and keep an open mind
I just wondered what other felt about this?
whoops edited my spelling mistake lol

8 Oct 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Well sorry folks another topical thread I am sorry.
But on reading the OJ thread has made me think back to the days when I was called up for jury service.
I sat on a case and after it has always left me with a feeling of did all the jury listen to all the evidence before them. I was gobsmacked in deliberation that a few of the jury had such a completely different view of how the rest of us had heard the case. The outcome didn’t alter how I felt and I was so happy after that the judge read out he had no previous and was let off, for something that I really in my gut totally felt he was innocent for.
But there were other people on the jury that would have had this person locked up. I think that personally they felt on that day the power to be able to do this to someone.
It does go to show that to have a balance on a jury is a good thing.
But it always left me with a feeling that could there be an argument for employed and fully trained jury members?
I have totally mixed views on this and keep an open mind
I just wondered what other felt about this?
whoops edited my spelling mistake

Bit like the "Tricia" studio audience perhaps?

8 Oct 2008

Most court descisions are made at a Magistrates Court.
Three Magistrates sit in judgement (hands tied by the rulebook)
Then you have Stipendary Magistrates who sit alone and are professional.
Finally there's the Crown Court. Twelve good men and true and all that. To quote Rumpole of the Bailey. The jury system and innocent til proved guilty are the golden threads that run through the British Justice system.
Long may it remain so

8 Oct 2008

I believe if the case is something like business / commercial fraud or similar where all the evidence is very complex then yes people who understand the subject would be better placed to make a judgement.
I think is was after about 40 days or so of complex legal evidence in somewhere like the high court, a juror raised her hand and told the judge she really didn’t understand the legal evidence that had been present regarding the fraud.
However in general cases, I believe that it should be carried on the way it currently is.

8 Oct 2008

Where is Deecee?did they introduce something about fraud cases....

8 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
Where is Deecee?did they introduce something about fraud cases....

You could google it? dunno

8 Oct 2008

Most of us in our day-to-day lives mix with people of whom at least 90% are likely to be reasonably honest and upright, and we only occasionally come into contact with criminals. The police, CPS, magistrates and judges on the other hand probably see more criminals than honest people, and must surely develop a very different picture of how society works to the rest of us, and I suspect, will often err on the side of guilty rather than innocent. If we had professional jurors I'm sure they would soon become tainted with the same view of society as they would constantly see people who had been accused of serious crimes (and by inference, a larger proportion of those are likely to be guilty than a random sample picked off the street)
So I would much sooner be tried by a random bunch of 12!!

8 Oct 2008

I think HJ has a good point there

8 Oct 2008

I’m not sure about professional juries but after having sat on a jury, I just hope that I never have to be tried by a dozen of my peers. The case I sat on was quite unsavoury and my experience of the deliberation was that there was NO deliberation, just a group of people that tried to browbeat those that didn’t agree with them into changing their minds. They were not interested in debating the evidence we had heard, totally dismissing anything that may have conflicted with the verdict they wanted. One woman declared that the defendant was guilty, even before she had heard any evidence!
Having said that, I have no idea what a better alternative would be dunno

9 Oct 2008

My one concession might be for a professional jury "Foreman" to keep order and ensure that everything was properly considered. -- possibly a "Number 13" but without a vote him/her self

9 Oct 2008

Quote by HJ

My one concession might be for a professional jury "Foreman" to keep order and ensure that everything was properly considered. -- possibly a "Number 13" but without a vote him/her self

Is that not what the judge does on his summing up? Impartial and tells the jury the facts and nothing else, when considering their verdict? dunno

9 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777

My one concession might be for a professional jury "Foreman" to keep order and ensure that everything was properly considered. -- possibly a "Number 13" but without a vote him/her self

Is that not what the judge does on his summing up? Impartial and tells the jury the facts and nothing else, when considering their verdict? dunno

Indeed he does but he has no control over what happens once the jury retires.

9 Oct 2008

Maybe just do as they do in the banana repubs and shoot the jury if they get the wrong verdict..
We only just stop short of that now with the introduction of Double Jeopardy..
If HMG don't like the verdict, they just keep trying people until they get a verdict they like!

9 Oct 2008

Quote by GnV
Maybe just do as they do in the banana repubs and shoot the jury if they get the wrong verdict..
We only just stop short of that now with the introduction of Double Jeopardy..
If HMG don't like the verdict, they just keep trying people until they get a verdict they like!

Cynical
but sadly not far from the truth

9 Oct 2008

Quote by Max777

My one concession might be for a professional jury "Foreman" to keep order and ensure that everything was properly considered. -- possibly a "Number 13" but without a vote him/her self

Is that not what the judge does on his summing up? Impartial and tells the jury the facts and nothing else, when considering their verdict? dunno

Indeed he does but he has no control over what happens once the jury retires.
Of course that is true, and I would hate to see anyone else in the jury room, except the twelve jurors.
As in many cases if the jurors are unsure on something, they can ask the judge to clarify a point...as many times as they like.
How hard is it to sum up the evidence, discuss it with your fellow jurors, and hopefully come to the right verdict. Nothing is perfect, but seems to have worked well enough over the years. :dunno:

9 Oct 2008

A few people here have served on juries and like me found it an eye opener.
1. How other people judge the evidence. In my case someone actually said something like - she must have done it she's black
2. How incompetant the police and CPS are. Honestly evidence was lost.

9 Oct 2008

Quote by HJ
Most of us in our day-to-day lives mix with people of whom at least 90% are likely to be reasonably honest and upright, and we only occasionally come into contact with criminals. The police, CPS, magistrates and judges on the other hand probably see more criminals than honest people, and must surely develop a very different picture of how society works to the rest of us, and I suspect, will often err on the side of guilty rather than innocent. If we had professional jurors I'm sure they would soon become tainted with the same view of society as they would constantly see people who had been accused of serious crimes (and by inference, a larger proportion of those are likely to be guilty than a random sample picked off the street)
So I would much sooner be tried by a random bunch of 12!!

HJ,
You have made me think, so I would like to say thanks for that!
The points you have made above I totally can see where you are coming from. Yes looking like it in that way I can see some would be tainted.
Your point about a 13 member with the jury I could see working and I think it could be a good idea. I can only relate it to a Chair person in a meeting keeping people focused on the points in question, as when I was on jury service it was so easy for people to diverse completely of track. I know the spokes person is supposed to do this, but as they are elected by the jury you don’t always know that they are strong enough to keep order.
Hope this makes sense!

9 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777

My one concession might be for a professional jury "Foreman" to keep order and ensure that everything was properly considered. -- possibly a "Number 13" but without a vote him/her self

Is that not what the judge does on his summing up? Impartial and tells the jury the facts and nothing else, when considering their verdict? dunno

Indeed he does but he has no control over what happens once the jury retires.
Of course that is true, and I would hate to see anyone else in the jury room, except the twelve jurors.
As in many cases if the jurors are unsure on something, they can ask the judge to clarify a point...as many times as they like.
How hard is it to sum up the evidence, discuss it with your fellow jurors, and hopefully come to the right verdict. Nothing is perfect, but seems to have worked well enough over the years. :dunno:
The judge could still have that role, I think what HJ was saying a 13th member would just be there to keep things on track without diverting completely and rambling about things that are irrelevant to the case in question.
I am sure HJ will correct me I am wrong, but this is how I read what he was talking bout.

9 Oct 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
But it always left me with a feeling that could there be an argument for employed and fully trained jury members?
I have totally mixed views on this and keep an open mind
I just wondered what other felt about this?
whoops edited my spelling mistake

hmmmmmmmmm.
I cant make my mind up whether im for or against the idea.
I like the princple.... but im tending to see areas where it could easily become corrupt. IE. Jury knobbling ( from both sides)... therfore a nightmare to police.
I think the sysetem could be improved rather than changed... and i think that's why the system has pretty much been the same for years....but the appointment side of system has developed. These days, persons who used to be excused from Jury service are no-longer exempt.... leading to a bigger pool of people to try cases.
The issue is all about whether a defendant can recieve a fair trial.....as soon as you start making one rule for some and another for others... the balance begins to shift.
The reality is ...that in a system where you are meant to be tried by "a group of your peers" there is often a huge divide (culturaly,ideologically, intellectually etc)between Defendant, Jury, Lawyers Experts and Policemen and a trial still has to remain fair.
If you start adding a financial incentive to those who are called to decide the outcome of a disputed case..... fairness begins to go out of the window...
Just my opinion of course ( it seems a trend to put such disclaimers!!!1)

9 Oct 2008

Quote by flower411
The judge could still have that role, I think what HJ was saying a 13th member would just be there to keep things on track without diverting completely and rambling about things that are irrelevant to the case in question.

Sorry I haven`t read this thread properly !! rolleyes

Why not?

But this bit caught my eye and I have to say that sometimes a bit of rambling and talking about irrelevant stuff helps me to think.
I can see your point, to me it could be a time to switch of and gather my thoughts. But to much rambling could make some lose interest, and direction.
If I have to be completely focussed on the matter in hand I tend to make snap decisions to alleviate the boredom !! :shock:
Fair point.
There`s a lot to be said for people being able to ramble and discuss when they are making such an important decision. If they had an authority figure "guiding" them they may well be coerced into making the wrong decision entirely.
There is a point about a certain amount of rambling, but when it goes completly off topic, as happened in a case I was on I did think lets get back to what we are here to discuss, I think if the authoritive figure used their common sence a certain amount of rambling could take place just not to much.
I would rather the courts started using plain English rather than "court speak" in an effort to help people understand what is going on ..
I totally agree some of the legal jargon is very confusing

9 Oct 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx

My one concession might be for a professional jury "Foreman" to keep order and ensure that everything was properly considered. -- possibly a "Number 13" but without a vote him/her self

Is that not what the judge does on his summing up? Impartial and tells the jury the facts and nothing else, when considering their verdict? dunno

Indeed he does but he has no control over what happens once the jury retires.
Of course that is true, and I would hate to see anyone else in the jury room, except the twelve jurors.
As in many cases if the jurors are unsure on something, they can ask the judge to clarify a point...as many times as they like.
How hard is it to sum up the evidence, discuss it with your fellow jurors, and hopefully come to the right verdict. Nothing is perfect, but seems to have worked well enough over the years. :dunno:
The judge could still have that role, I think what HJ was saying a 13th member would just be there to keep things on track without diverting completely and rambling about things that are irrelevant to the case in question.
I am sure HJ will correct me I am wrong, but this is how I read what he was talking bout.
If the jury want to " ramble " or discuss " irrelevant " things, is that what a lot of lawyers do in court anyway?
Some cases seem to take weeks to get through, when really it is pretty clear cut evidence. Hence very rich barristers. lol

Joke there.
Of course a few trials are complicated and those ones I believe members of the general public, should not sit on. But most are your everyday things....burglary, shoplifting, more often that not drugs. Those in my opinion should be heard as they are now with 12 members of the public, given directions from a high court judge, about the evidence they should consider. A thirteenth person I feel would just hinder things.
You can just imagine a scenario where a jury member wants to discuss something he or she feels is relevant to them, and then the 13th person says " that is not worth talking about ". What then happens if that jury member thinks it is? :dunno: What happens if not being able to discuss something leads that jury member to maybe not come to the verdict, he may have done, if he was allowed to talk about it? Blimey that dont make sense to me now. :lol:
It is not perfect and even judges get it wrong from time to time but...I still feel that the way it is done now is the best way.

9 Oct 2008

Quote by flower411
The judge could still have that role, I think what HJ was saying a 13th member would just be there to keep things on track without diverting completely and rambling about things that are irrelevant to the case in question.

Sorry I haven`t read this thread properly !! rolleyes

But this bit caught my eye and I have to say that sometimes a bit of rambling and talking about irrelevant stuff helps me to think.
If I have to be completely focussed on the matter in hand I tend to make snap decisions to alleviate the boredom !! :shock:
There`s a lot to be said for people being able to ramble and discuss when they are making such an important decision. If they had an authority figure "guiding" them they may well be coerced into making the wrong decision entirely .
I would rather the courts started using plain English rather than "court speak" in an effort to help people understand what is going on..
Wot, like "the fuzz got 'im bang to rights then" and "it were a fair cop" confused

:

9 Oct 2008

There should be a professional jury for trials such as the 'Guinness' trial thingummybob. documents for goodness sakes.
Otherwise maybe we should have an X-Factor type system whereby 3 Judges and a compere (I would favour Jonathan Ross) hosted and asked Questions they know people wanted asking such as Did it really really hurt or was the item stolen in keeping with your home decor colour scheme etc. After a suitable amount of cross examining by the judges say 20 mins or so the judges give their opinion and then the vote is put to the country by phone line. Seems sense to me biggrin

9 Oct 2008

In my experience, the problem wasn't that jurors were unable to discuss relevant or irrelevant facts but the fact that they didn't want to deliberate or discuss anything at all. They had already decided what they wanted the verdict to be and weren't prepared to discuss any evidence that questioned that verdict.

9 Oct 2008

A 'professional' jury would simply operate in a manner that best suited themselves, why because they would be getting paid for it.
However a variety of 'professionals' are employed along the way in bringing the accused to justice. It seems somewhat contradictory to throw ill equipped amateurs together to assess the findings of the professionals, and make a decision.
Perhaps it is the only way to get a genuine sample of the reaction of the public.

15 Oct 2008

I think all trials should be conducted on the web.
All evidence should be published and the public given a chance to consider the published evidence.
Any individual who had read all of the evidence (as proved by a log of their web browsing and a test of their knowledge of the facts of the case) would then be allowed to vote.
After a suitable period for this to be conducted ( i suggest a year) the votes would be counted and the verdict decided.
I sat on a jury once too and I hope to god/goddess im never the victim of trial by jury. Id prefer trial by ordeal. I think its fairer.

15 Oct 2008

12 good men and true?
What we settle for is 12 men and women pulled of the voting list, minus a few who can not sit. Are they the best men? Could we say, remove those from the list that have had a parking offence or sat outside of parliament haranguing the PM and MPs. Yes there must be some control on who can sit on juries, perhaps no ex-convicts, but a paid jury, never.
The first thing the Government would do is publish figures; how many guilty verdicts, what happens if a jury finds too many innocent?
I think 12 good voters, no ex-cons or anyone treated for mental disorder. Any thing more than that would be undermining the jury system.
Travis