Jury Service.

[gleeber]

Recently I recieved a letter telling me I was randomly selected for jury service and could be called upon any time in the next 2 years to participate.
Unless I am disqualified, under certain circumstances, I have no option but to do as I am told. They even ask for dates when I may not be avaiulable over that period.
That's all fair enough but what made me think about jury service was the knowledge I have about myself. Internal feelings no one else knows about. Prejudices, morals, kinks, both good and bad depending on your moral code. As a juror, how much would my decisions be affected by those innermost activities, sometimes even outside my own awareness? Could I decide someones fate purely on the evidence presented or could my own prejudices contaminate my decision?
Considering the number of high profile miscarriages of justice in recent years can ordinary people be relied on to deliver an honest opinion whilst serving on a jury or are the chances of a contaminated opinion possible by at least some of a 12 person jury if not all of them?

[redeyedtreefrog]

They should televise court cases and do a red-button vote. Just like normal jury with normal people, but more of them.

[kmahon2001]

Recently I recieved a letter telling me I was randomly selected for jury service and could be called upon any time in the next 2 years to participate.
Unless I am disqualified, under certain circumstances, I have no option but to do as I am told. They even ask for dates when I may not be avaiulable over that period.
That's all fair enough but what made me think about jury service was the knowledge I have about myself. Internal feelings no one else knows about. Prejudices, morals, kinks, both good and bad depending on your moral code. As a juror, how much would my decisions be affected by those innermost activities, sometimes even outside my own awareness? Could I decide someones fate purely on the evidence presented or could my own prejudices contaminate my decision?
Considering the number of high profile miscarriages of justice in recent years can ordinary people be relied on to deliver an honest opinion whilst serving on a jury or are the chances of a contaminated opinion possible by at least some of a 12 person jury if not all of them?

I think that is why a jury is made up of 12 people instead of 1 person - to hopefully balance out the various prejudices etc.

Having said that, in a lot of cases, it would be extremely difficult not to have formed some kind of opinion prior to going to court because of all the continual media speculation that goes on nowadays. Gone are the days when the news media just reported the news, now they have to analyse it to death and constantly speculate on what is likely to happen instead of limiting themselves to reporting what has actually happened. It must be virtually impossible for any jury member, particularly in a high profile case, to approach their duties with an open mind.

[crayola]

I think that is why a jury is made up of 12 people instead of 1 person - to hopefully balance out the various prejudices etc.

A Scottish jury is 15 people. I know because I was in court three weeks ago.

One juror should always be riggerboy so justice is always reached.

Hang 'em!

[joxville]

A Scottish jury is 15 people. I know because I was in court three weeks ago.

One juror should always be riggerboy so justice is always reached.

Hang 'em!

Were you found not guilty?

[crayola]

Were you found not guilty?

I was Exhibit A.

I've often wondered whether the average juror is up to assessing all the evidence and coming to an objective conclusion. But friends who've been jurors in serious and often very complex cases report that the system works well, partly because most cases are clear cut. Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder whether juries should be selected at random from a set of people who've been trained as jurors and have passed some sort of qualifying test of competence as a juror.

Do I worry unnecessarily?

[Stavro]

I was Exhibit A.

I've often wondered whether the average juror is up to assessing all the evidence and coming to an objective conclusion. But friends who've been jurors in serious and often very complex cases report that the system works well, partly because most cases are clear cut. Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder whether juries should be selected at random from a set of people who've been trained as jurors and have passed some sort of qualifying test of competence as a juror.

Do I worry unnecessarily?

In my opinion the system works far more times than it fails because of this random cross-section of the public and I think that "training" jurors would defeat this and leave the system open to a greater degree of abuse than at present.

[crayola]

I should have said 'educated' rather than 'trained'. Thanks for your comment.

[j_1971son]

Recently I recieved a letter telling me I was randomly selected for jury service and could be called upon any time in the next 2 years to participate.
Unless I am disqualified, under certain circumstances, I have no option but to do as I am told. They even ask for dates when I may not be avaiulable over that period.
That's all fair enough but what made me think about jury service was the knowledge I have about myself. Internal feelings no one else knows about. Prejudices, morals, kinks, both good and bad depending on your moral code. As a juror, how much would my decisions be affected by those innermost activities, sometimes even outside my own awareness? Could I decide someones fate purely on the evidence presented or could my own prejudices contaminate my decision?
Considering the number of high profile miscarriages of justice in recent years can ordinary people be relied on to deliver an honest opinion whilst serving on a jury or are the chances of a contaminated opinion possible by at least some of a 12 person jury if not all of them?

having experienced this myself, i can understand what you are going through, but once you are actually there and discussing any cases with your fellow jurors you quickly become focused on the trial itself. The only problems we came across was that some of the questions we asked were not answered as this would of predujiced the case. other than that it was a great experience, apart from the bit where we had to swear in. To those of you who are wondering if we found the person guilty or not, yes we found him guilty and no i cannot talk about the case even though it's been about 15 years ago.

[horseman]

I should have said 'educated' rather than 'trained'. Thanks for your comment.

Bog off crayola-one is worse than the other!

[cuddlepop]

I should have said 'educated' rather than 'trained'. Thanks for your comment.

Seriously is there a difference.

I'd find it difficult to be non judgemental in domestic abuse cases so I do think back ground checks on jurors should be carried out and their opinions noted on certain "behaviours"

[achingale]

I dread this. I have no idea how objective I could be, depending on the crime. A crime like theft or vandalism I could probably see a way round, but rape or domestic violence, without even hearing the case, I would throw the book at them.

[Stavro]

I should have said 'educated' rather than 'trained'. Thanks for your comment.

You're welcome.

As for the other poster who said that jurors' opinions "should be noted," that would be a recipe for rigged trials and would defeat the whole concept of having a jury picked at random.

[The Angel Of Death]

but rape or domestic violence, without even hearing the case, I would throw the book at them.

Now this comments like this that I disagree with firstly rape is a discussing crime but there has been cases where a woman has cried rape because of several reasons and even when its been consensual its the bloke that suffers for this something like getting "accused" can stick regardless of it they done it or not

But according to your argument someone is guilty just because they have been accused of the crime now that’s just not right as with everything there are always two sides to a coin that's the whole point to a court and a jury of your peers its to judge and decide if a crime was committed or not yes

If found quilty let the punishement commence castration works wonders for preventing something like this again

[_Ju_]

If found quilty let the punishement commence castration works wonders for preventing something like this again

Castrations works wonders in preventing the crime (in the case of rape, I presume)? Because it is a drastic and debilitating punishment?

I would point out two things:

1. Rape is never about the sexual act, and always about control/power. Castration does not debilitate anything in this crime except for the sexual act itself.
2. Drastic and debilitating punishment has never been a determent. The USA have used it time immemorial (ie: nothing more drastic than death, is there?) and it has not helped to curb their violent crime an iota. Some defend that it actually increases the ruthlessness of criminals that have nothing more to loose.

[Leanne]

Rape is never about the sexual act, and always about control/power. Castration does not debilitate anything in this crime except for the sexual act itself

But it stops a woman who has been raped becoming pregnant. Imagine the mental state of a poor woman who becomes pregnant from a rape and then has to face either a) aborting the child, or b) keeping the child and having the face that the child is the product of the rape for the rest of their lives. Not a nice consequence of the crime...

[_Ju_]

Pregnancy is not a highly likely consequence of rape. STD's and the emotional scars are the usual legacies. A rapist will find another way to express his need for control/power if castrated. Aside from that if you castrate a rapist to prevent pregnancies in subsequent victims, then you are punishing a person for a crime not yet commited. What happened to try rehabilitation in jail and once having spent your sentence, your debt to society having been paid?

But the point I was trying to make had more to do with the fact that drastic punishments (such as castration or death penalty), is proven not to reduce violent crime nor address the root causes of crime. I am not sure what would.

I don't think I would be selected for a jury for a violent crime. I would not be able to be impartial.

[MrsK]

I think the point that many on here are making about not being sure if they were able to judge someone fairly displays a degree of self-criticism and level headedness that makes a good juror.


As for creating a legal 'elite' of pre-selected and 'educated' (ahem) jurors whose decision making abilities are somehow greatly enhanced compared to Mr and Mrs Joe Bloke off the street:

Absolutely not.

In effect, you are saying that law abiding members of our community have no role to play when it comes the Criminal Justice system. And only those who have been 'specially selected' (by whom?) and recieved 'Training/Education/Indoctrination/Brainwashing by the State (take your pick) are worthy of having their opinions noted.

One of the cornerstones of British Justice is that anyone can elect to be tried by their peers, this would no longer be the case. As you would have no option but to be tried by a pre-selected and 'educated' panel.....that way lies State control.

No way.

[crayola]

I think the point that many on here are making about not being sure if they were able to judge someone fairly displays a degree of self-criticism and level headedness that makes a good juror.

That's an interesting point of view but can you convince those posters of it?

As for creating a legal 'elite' of pre-selected and 'educated' (ahem) jurors whose decision making abilities are somehow greatly enhanced compared to Mr and Mrs Joe Bloke off the street:

Absolutely not.

In effect, you are saying that law abiding members of our community have no role to play when it comes the Criminal Justice system. And only those who have been 'specially selected' (by whom?) and recieved 'Training/Education/Indoctrination/Brainwashing by the State (take your pick) are worthy of having their opinions noted.

One of the cornerstones of British Justice is that anyone can elect to be tried by their peers, this would no longer be the case. As you would have no option but to be tried by a pre-selected and 'educated' panel.....that way lies State control.

No way.

You've come at this from a particular angle and have described some of the pitfalls of a badly constructed and biased system of selecting jurors, but that doesn't prove a better and robust system can't be constructed. Maybe the current system weeds out poor potential jurors but that's not the impression I get, at least in Scotland, but maybe it works well enough that the system doesn't need improving and as you say it stops the state fiddling verdicts.

As I understand it juries don't just offer opinions, they make decisions and these can be a simple majority which can make or break peoples' lives, and the members of the jury don't require any qualifications, experience, education or training whatsoever to do so. Where else in our society is this true? I know one answer to that question but I think you'd dismiss changing that system for the same reasons you dismissed the idea of qualified juries.

Maybe the system works fine as it is and any attempt to improve it would only make things worse on the fair trial front but many Western European countries and other similar countries worldwide don't have jury trials like ours for many or even most court cases.

I'm not really pushing these ideas but I find it interesting to bounce them about with people I don't know anything about, like you for example.

I'm not involved in the legal profession as will be obvious to anyone that is!

[_Ju_]

As I understand it juries don't just offer opinions, they make decisions and these can be a simple majority which can make or break peoples' lives, and the members of the jury don't require any qualifications, experience, education or training whatsoever to do so. Where else in our society is this true?

The juries do receive strenuous guidance from the judge. The listen to the evidence produced by both prosecution and degfence and it is the judge, based on the strength of the evidence which tells the jury what kind of verdicts it can deliver (for example, manslaughter instead of murder, assult intead of GBH, etc, etc). So while they may not be qualified/trained, they are not left to their own devices either! (Note that I left out experience and education.... experience of life and whatever degree of education, is brought and needed into a court room.)