It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
(Perhaps with some other public duty allocated if you fail, to avoid intentional crap results)
If I was prosecuted, I think I'd prefer a jury of professional jurors, trained, and monitored during their deliberations.
I'd want a written and video/audio record of their decision process.
If they aren't legally trained, I'd want to see someone sitting in with them, supervising and advising like the magistrate's legal adviser role currently in use.
Reasons?
Criteria:
If a juror is presented with information and draws what seems to all other observers to be an irrational conclusion what is the course of action?
As also alluded to in a prior post a defendant's prior history is normally kept from the jury until after the verdict in the hope that it will avoid the formation of any pre-judged opinions that might bias the outcome. Just because someone has a track record of murder/rape/torture/fraud or whatever doesn't automatically mean they did it this time around and it would be a terrible shame to convict a habitual offender when there is the slightest doubt.
Conversely you have case like the Post Office Horizon where hundreds of people with no track record of offending all suddenly become arch criminals in the same scheme and are found guilty because one side could afford better barristers.
An intelligent person could have looked at that case, noticed the crime spree coincided with the arrival of the new IT system and drawn the reasonable conclusion. Sadly what constitutes "average" intelligence is a pretty low bar so 12 average people can be manipulated at will by someone of above average intelligence. Numbers don't guarantee a level playing field.
Take your average election. The US currently is an easy example. Somehow, last time around 70 million people decided that the narcissistic simpleton with the history of lying, fraud, sexual assault and blatant idiocy was still the best person to lead them. Given the mountains of evidence pointing to the conclusion that said orangutan is unfit for office, how do they still hold the opinion that he is the man for the top slot? How did the UK end up with Liz Truss in charge? The examples are endless.
Critical thought is hard work and most people are too lazy to do it. Couple that with some unfortunate biological inheritance in our thought processes and here we are.
They will become case hardened and will hear some excuses repeated dozens of times a day.
I would worry about anyone who wanted to be a professional juror. The psychological testing needed before appointment would take years.
The psychological damage to a person after hearing the worse of humanity for 40 hours a week cannot be underestimated either. The support structure would need to be massive, but no govt would be funding it properly.
Once it is a job, it’s very difficult to maintain it as a duty and to give each case Duty levels of attention. Everybody gets job boredom.
And the most important this is that Jury deliberations are secret. There would be no way of having performance reviews to look for bias, boredom etc.
HOWEVER….
In Japan and Sweden they kind of have professional jurors of a fashion… the more serious the offence, the more Judges are needed, and a majority of judges are needed to get a conviction. All deliberations are recorded and reasons written down.
The only way I’d support “professional juries” if the people who could be selected had judge level experience.
Again, no UK government is going to fund that. Theres dozens of empty judge jobs already and the government is doing nothing to boost recruitment now, let alone needing 12 per case!
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
It’s not about the money.
The jury of peers deals with the rest.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
Mind you I have never won anything on premium bonds, despite having had some since birth
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.
It’s a non issue.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd