Time to look at the jury system?

[d9f1c7]

Assuming this guy didn't actually do it...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-london-18102336
Is it time to look at alternatives to the Jury system?
It seems several aspects of the case are unsound from the prosecution, yet this guy was still convicted. Presumably the defence was sadly lacking or the Jury ignored the evidence. Anyway whatever the reasons surely the system is in serious need of change if this can happen.

[NOX]

There are no perfect systems, I'm pretty happy with the jury system as far as it can go although I've been on the receiving end of guilty verdicts too when I hadn't actually committed some of the offences i was accused of.
The real problem is the police's dog with a bone attitude and the corruption within it ( the police were well aware I hadn't done half of the things they charged me with and the CPS is a joke especially if there are offences in there that you have actually done) and will happily proceed knowing that juries will usually assume you are guilty of all counts if you are guilty of only some. The police don't care much if they have the right person as long as they have a person.

[sandyRoe]

I doubt if it's the fault of the jury system. Seems the only evidence was that of an eye witness. The judge should have directed the jury to be chary about such evidence.

[emmie]

Because this one case, though of course there have been numerous others, means we should change the system that mostly works well. Perhaps his legal team did not serve him well, but that doesn't mean we should overturn a system of Judge and Jury. I would rather be tried that way that sit in a room with a team of legal eagles and a Judge, who knows what might happen.

[jake-the-peg]

I wonder what he thinks about the death penalty eh?

[d9f1c7]

It's not because of "this one case em10". This is just the latest case, it seems the jails are full of people who shouldn't be there.

[Davethedog]

The jury system wasn't at fault.

The police didn't investigate properly, didn't check his alibi

Hallam didn't disclose information on advice from his lawyer.

The defence didn't present all the facts.

[jake-the-peg]

And for those that would say "Ah yes but there was no DNA evidence" there was this case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12310494

or this

http://www.abc.net.au...for-wrong-dna/1089520

[d9f1c7]

It was the Jury, they acted on the evidence. The fact that the prosecution case was flawed only serves to highlight that the defence was woeful and the Jury were willing to convict first and ask questions later. It seems, any lawyer or even the defendent himself could have driven a coach and horses throught the prosecution case and didn't. QED this whole system is flawed if this can happen.

[emmie]

this is what i said..

Because this one case, though of course there have been numerous others,

[emmie]

i am sure the jails are full of people who have committed crimes and still say they shouldn't be there.

[jno]

if the problem lay with lousy investigation and unavailable evidence, how is the fault of the jury system? Sounds like a faulty investigative system.

What happened, it seems, was that he couldn't remember where he was at the time but thought he was playing football. This alibi was disproved.

In fact he'd been in a pub and still had photos proving this on his phone. But neither he nor the prosecution had thought to check this.

Failings in both the prosecution and defence, but the jury did their job.

I'm waiting to hear pro-death penalty types say this savage should have been hanged years ago.

[rojash]

"if the problem lay with lousy investigation and unavailable evidence, how is the fault of the jury system? Sounds like a faulty investigative system. "

Absolutely. The CPS and the police withheld information that could have aided the defence. In other words, the jury (once again) didn't get to hear the evidence. NJ will contradict me, but it once again demonstrates the poor quality of the police service - they are either stupid, corrupt, or a bit of each.

[Old_Geezer]

I've yet to hear of an alternative that is better. If you take control away from the people and hand it to an elite, then that, IMO, is a retrograde step. The 12 members of the public are trying one of their peers, and should be able to decide on the verdict they honestly believe appropriate.

[d9f1c7]

OK fair enough, but why didn't his defence blow it out of the water? You can hardly expect the prosecution/Police to help the defence case can you?

[rojash]

"You can hardly expect the prosecution/Police to help the defence case can you?"
Well, yes you can.
If the police have evidence that contradicts their own case, it should (by both common sense, and by law) be made available to the defence.
The job of the police is to detect and prosecute the perpetrator of the crime, not just pick someone and go all out for a conviction. This is not a game - it's about people's lives.

[jno]

like I said, faults in prosecution and defence. But the jury? About the one group of people who did their job properly.

There's a piece about manpower problems here

http://www.guardian.c...iminal-justice-system

[emmie]

I would rather keep the jury system. It looks to all intents and purposes they did their job.

[Barmaid]

Quite the opposite d9f1c7. The prosecution are OBLIGED under the CPIA to disclose ALL information that might undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence at secondary disclosure stage. They did not do so. The defence can't use evidence they do not have access to. 9/10 the Defence case will need the disclosure from the Prosecution in order to effectively run their case - particularly since the Prosecution act for the investigating body and the defence have limited powers of investigation.

It is not the jury system that is flawed, juries can only decide on the evidence before them.

[Barmaid]

Sorry Rojash, must type quicker.

[d9f1c7]

ah "should", with "shouldn't" two of the most quoted yet irrelevant words in use! Yes we all know what should happen,I'm talking about what does happen.