Jury Service pending

Timcito

fretmeister said:

Professional jurors are a terrible idea. ...

An argument in favour might be to avoid what happened in the highly charged Nicholas Cruz case here in the US not so long ago. Cruz murdered (I think) a total of 22 teenagers and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School some years ago. The consensus was that if ever an individual deserved the death penalty it was he, yet one jury member stood firm and refused, which meant the guy got life instead.

A question arising from this would be the legitimacy of one jury member to impose their personal moral standards on a case being tried according to the laws of the state. It looked, on this occasion, as if the jury member who refused to allow the death penalty to proceed may have been ideologically opposed to capital punishment no matter the circumstances or its appropriate application by the laws of the country. Had the jury been formed of experienced practitioners, the chances of such an aberration taking place would be less likely, I think.   

After that moment, the power of one jury member to hijack a majority decision on the death penalty was overturned. 

Kurtis

Timcito said:

fretmeister said:

Professional jurors are a terrible idea. ...

An argument in favour might be to avoid what happened in the highly charged Nicholas Cruz case here in the US not so long ago. Cruz murdered (I think) a total of 22 teenagers and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School some years ago. The consensus was that if ever an individual deserved the death penalty it was he, yet one jury member stood firm and refused, which meant the guy got life instead.

A question arising from this would be the legitimacy of one jury member to impose their personal moral standards on a case being tried according to the laws of the state. It looked, on this occasion, as if the jury member who refused to allow the death penalty to proceed may have been ideologically opposed to capital punishment no matter the circumstances or its appropriate application by the laws of the country. Had the jury been formed of experienced practitioners, the chances of such an aberration taking place would be less likely, I think.   

After that moment, the power of one jury member to hijack a majority decision on the death penalty was overturned. 

Is it not usually the judge/law that decides that? 

Timcito

Kurtis said:

Timcito said:

fretmeister said:

Professional jurors are a terrible idea. ...

An argument in favour might be to avoid what happened in the highly charged Nicholas Cruz case here in the US not so long ago. ...

Is it not usually the judge/law that decides that? 

In this case, at least, the jurors did vote either for or against the death penalty. One juror stuck by the argument that Cruz was mentally ill, but reports suggests that this juror was firmly opposed to capital punishment even before the trial began, that there was, in effect, no evidence the court could possibly have given that would have changed her mind.

TTBZ

There was a programme on channel 4 about this recently where 2 juries did a replica trial of a real case. Pretty interesting how the louder more outspoken members could sway the others to change their mind, with what I thought were bullying tactics to get the outcome they wanted. The two juries came out with different verdicts in the end. I guess I just don't like that someone's life can be decided by random untrained people, it seemed like most of them decided by emotion rather than looking at all the facts.

robgilmo

fretmeister said:

robgilmo said:

fretmeister said:

And yet we have a recruitment crisis.

It’s not about the money. 

It doesn’t matter if the judges are out of touch. They are there for the law.

The jury of peers deals with the rest.

I believe it does matter, the judge has to be able to ascertain a judgement and sentence not only based on law but also on the convicted persons abilities to exercise that judgement, something they may find difficult had they never walked the same path, or even close. In my view , and based on the crime (or none criminal) a judgement should be something that leads to a path of reformation, simply banging a fine on someone ill equipped to deal with it isnt that and is possibly more damaging to society than not. 

Everything you just said is interpretation of law and sentencing guidelines and evidence presented during the trial.

Even after conviction the defendants barrister can present arguments for mitigation for lower sentences.

It’s up to the defendants barrister to present what the client wants, not for the judge to make assumptions. If the defendant barrister mentions something the judge doesn’t know about, then the judge will ask.

If the convicted person does not want to have anything put forward as mitigation then that is up to them.

The only time the “out of touch” argument makes the newspaper is because a judge hasn’t heard of a new pop star.

It’s a non issue. 

But, even if it was an issue, it wouldn’t affect the law. It applies equally to all.

The defendants barrister can argue that the sentence isnt appropriate to the defendants ability to exicute said sentance in a positive way, an inability to pay a fine for instance, a judge however cannot feel the pain of having to decide wither to heat their home or pay said fine, because they simply cannot comprahend a decision like that if they havent actually been there. So a barrister can argue until blue in the face and it possibly would make a difference however that doesnt close the social gap between judge and defendent.
It runs deeper than that though, a sentance doesnt deal with the 'why' a crime was commited, it doesnt really reform the criminal nor does it prevent future crimes from being commited. Criminals are created, they arnt born criminals.People say the courts are nothing more than an industry, the lack of effective reformation for criminals would also suggest this, someone steals money because they are skint, we bang a fine on them, where is the sense in that? When someone goes into prison for criminal activity they come out skint, homeless and with very little options, except maybe returning to crime, I believe its time we stopped treating people like criminals and more that they are people who need help rather than punishment.

Emp_Fab

I've served on a jury three times and in each case, there were several jurors I wouldn't have trusted with doing their shoelaces up, never mind deciding on someone else's future.  I believe the idea is that it should be "a jury of your peers".  That isn't really guaranteed with the random selection we have.  You could end up with an entire jury of white middle class people and a black working class defendant from a council sink estate.  They are, statistically speaking, less likely to find the defendant not guilty than if the defendant were one of the jury's peer group, given identical evidence.  Likewise other disparate social groups.  I think that there should be some method of selection that provided a more accurate cross-section of the general public, maybe even factoring in the region the crime occurred in ?  e.g. - if the crime occurred in an ethnically diverse / posh / poor / area, the jury should consist of a similar makeup.  Make it more peer-relatable ?  I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud.

I loved doing jury service.  I remember one time, we were all assembled in the jury room to consider our verdict at the end of the trial and there was one middle-aged woman who had made reams of notes throughout the trial and was clearly overjoyed at this opportunity to play Miss Marple.  She stood up ready to start her performance when I interrupted, suggesting that before we get into a dissection of the evidence, it might be good to see if we already all agree on a verdict.  Most agreed that seemed sensible, so I said "OK then...  by a show of hands, who thinks he's guilty ?".

Everybody's hand went up.  I said "There we are.... sorted!".  Miss Marple sat down, crestfallen.  Denied her chance at an Oscar in Twelve Angry Taffs.   

robgilmo

Emp_Fab said:

I've served on a jury three times and in each case, there were several jurors I wouldn't have trusted with doing their shoelaces up, never mind deciding on someone else's future.  I believe the idea is that it should be "a jury of your peers".  That isn't really guaranteed with the random selection we have.  You could end up with an entire jury of white middle class people and a black working class defendant from a council sink estate.  They are, statistically speaking, less likely to find the defendant not guilty than if the defendant were one of the jury's peer group, given identical evidence.  Likewise other disparate social groups.  I think that there should be some method of selection that provided a more accurate cross-section of the general public, maybe even factoring in the region the crime occurred in ?  e.g. - if the crime occurred in an ethnically diverse / posh / poor / area, the jury should consist of a similar makeup.  Make it more peer-relatable ?  I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud.

I loved doing jury service.  I remember one time, we were all assembled in the jury room to consider our verdict at the end of the trial and there was one middle-aged woman who had made reams of notes throughout the trial and was clearly overjoyed at this opportunity to play Miss Marple.  She stood up ready to start her performance when I interrupted, suggesting that before we get into a dissection of the evidence, it might be good to see if we already all agree on a verdict.  Most agreed that seemed sensible, so I said "OK then...  by a show of hands, who thinks he's guilty ?".

Everybody's hand went up.  I said "There we are.... sorted!".  Miss Marple sat down, crestfallen.  Denied her chance at an Oscar in Twelve Angry Taffs.   

Perhaps she had a valid point that everyone else missed? Thats the problem right there.

TeleMaster

I for one am extremely glad I never have to do jury duty. 

Emp_Fab

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

I loved doing jury service.  I remember one time, we were all assembled in the jury room to consider our verdict at the end of the trial and there was one middle-aged woman who had made reams of notes throughout the trial and was clearly overjoyed at this opportunity to play Miss Marple.  She stood up ready to start her performance when I interrupted, suggesting that before we get into a dissection of the evidence, it might be good to see if we already all agree on a verdict.  Most agreed that seemed sensible, so I said "OK then...  by a show of hands, who thinks he's guilty ?".

Everybody's hand went up.  I said "There we are.... sorted!".  Miss Marple sat down, crestfallen.  Denied her chance at an Oscar in Twelve Angry Taffs.   

Perhaps she had a valid point that everyone else missed? Thats the problem right there.

Perhaps you missed the valid point in my tale that SHE ALSO thought he was guilty.  Whatever "valid point" she might have had, she still thought he was guilty !!  It wouldn't have changed the verdict.  Besides, the evidence was overwhelming.

Kurtis

Timcito said:

Kurtis said:

Timcito said:

fretmeister said:

Professional jurors are a terrible idea. ...

An argument in favour might be to avoid what happened in the highly charged Nicholas Cruz case here in the US not so long ago. ...

Is it not usually the judge/law that decides that? 

In this case, at least, the jurors did vote either for or against the death penalty. One juror stuck by the argument that Cruz was mentally ill, but reports suggests that this juror was firmly opposed to capital punishment even before the trial began, that there was, in effect, no evidence the court could possibly have given that would have changed her mind.

That's mad. I'm surprised it was only one that didn't agree with the death penalty. 

Emp_Fab

Another time, I volunteered to be Foreman.  The charge was GBH, the defendant a young man who had misinterpreted a play-fight and intervened to help his mate.  We unanimously agreed he was not guilty and it was personally a memorable moment for me when I stood up in the jury box to say "NOT Guilty".  I remember emphasising the "NOT" as I was scared of being misunderstood !  The defendant burst into tears and his knees buckled.  The judge freed him and we all then sat there as the judge tore a strip off the prosecution, saying that he never usually comments in this way but he was making an exception to go on the record as saying that this case should never have been brought to court and he didn't know what the CPS were playing at.

BillDL

I don't believe that a jury should ever be given the task of deciding on whether the death penalty should be given.  That's a job for the judge.  Of course, in the American justice system there are a few different "levels" of manslaughter / murder, each carrying different mandatory prison terms or the option for capital punishment, so a jury will know when delivering a guilty verdict for that particular level whether the death sentence is applicable.  Yes, we too have different levels of homicide in the UK, but it's generally either culpable homicide / manslaughter (i.e. mitigating circumstances) or murder, and the most horrendous or violent could be termed "1st degree".  Fortunately juries here don't have to consider whether the death penalty is an option or it could very easily sway the actual verdict.

robgilmo

Emp_Fab said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

I loved doing jury service.  I remember one time, we were all assembled in the jury room to consider our verdict at the end of the trial and there was one middle-aged woman who had made reams of notes throughout the trial and was clearly overjoyed at this opportunity to play Miss Marple.  She stood up ready to start her performance when I interrupted, suggesting that before we get into a dissection of the evidence, it might be good to see if we already all agree on a verdict.  Most agreed that seemed sensible, so I said "OK then...  by a show of hands, who thinks he's guilty ?".

Everybody's hand went up.  I said "There we are.... sorted!".  Miss Marple sat down, crestfallen.  Denied her chance at an Oscar in Twelve Angry Taffs.   

Perhaps she had a valid point that everyone else missed? Thats the problem right there.

Perhaps you missed the valid point in my tale that SHE ALSO thought he was guilty.  Whatever "valid point" she might have had, she still thought he was guilty !!  It wouldn't have changed the verdict.  Besides, the evidence was overwhelming.

That wasnt my point, my point was she wasnt allowed to speak, that is what I meant by way of stating that this is a problem. 

euan

A major problem I’ve had in jury rooms is with the loud people saying the likes of “I wouldn’t have done that” or “my daughter wouldn’t have allowed that”. Which when pointed out that shouldn’t be considered as it isn’t part of the submitted evidence you’re effectively told to eff off. 

On that Channel 4 jury show it was very evident that people view evidence based on their experience and not how it’s presented. 

The ability to record, comprehend and then logically think through evidence is massively lacking on a jury. 

Kurtis

It does sound a bit crazy that a guilty verdict can be delivered without any discussion at all. 

BillDL

robgilmo said:

That wasnt my point, my point was she wasnt allowed to speak, that is what I meant by way of stating that this is a problem. 

I agree.  The point(s) she was bullied out of raising may well have been points that had been overlooked by the others, and could easily have cast a different light on the evidence in other jurors' minds.

Timcito

Emp_Fab said:

You could end up with an entire jury of white middle class people and a black working class defendant from a council sink estate.  They are, statistically speaking, less likely to find the defendant not guilty than if the defendant were one of the jury's peer group, given identical evidence.  Likewise other disparate social groups.  ...

Race is another thorny issue when it comes to selecting jury members from the general public, at least here in the US, where blacks claim they receive harsher verdicts and sentences at the hands of white juries and judges. However, it works the other way, too, with black members of juries seeming to favour fellow black defendants, and where the call for 'justice' is typically a euphemism for a pro-black verdict.  

robgilmo

BillDL said:

robgilmo said:

That wasnt my point, my point was she wasnt allowed to speak, that is what I meant by way of stating that this is a problem. 

I agree.  The point(s) she was bullied out of raising may well have been points that had been overlooked by the others, and could easily have cast a different light on the evidence in other jurors' minds.

Exactly, people arnt perfect, but we are opinionated , and when our opinion is challenged we  usually take the stance of defence, to defend our opinions and beliefs, however when someones freedom is on the line opinions in my view have no place, we might think we are level headed but we are only human and our ability to judge others will always be tainted by our past experiences, our beliefs and our opinions, no matter how much we think our judgement is based on evidence put in front of us. 

BillDL

Timcito said:

Race is another thorny issue when it comes to selecting jury members from the general public, at least here in the US ......

Therein lies one of the main differences between the US and the UK justice system.  In America barristers are allowed to question jurors at length to vet them prior to accepting or rejecting them, and they can more or less mould a jury panel.  In the UK it's more or less like Forrest Gump's box of choclits in that you never know what you will get in the final jury. In the UK the prosecution and defence have full access to the list of the "bank" of jurors from which random selection will be made and they can ask details of those people.  They do have the right to "challenge" the selection of a particular juror as long as this is done before that juror is sworn in, but this is never done as a matter of course.  It is quite rare that challenges are made.  It's explained here:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jury-vetting

merlin

12 Angry Men.