Has The Jury System Had Its Day?

[LazyGun]

The Judge seemed none too impressed with some of the questions put to him by what does seem to have been a very confused jury in the Vicky Price case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vicky-pryce-trial-q-can-a-juror-come-to-a-verdict-based-on-a-reason-that-was-not-presented-in-court-and-has-no-facts-or-evidence-to-support-it-8503566.html

The Jury in this case seemed to be struggling with basic english and the fundamentals of what might constitute evidence. Should this be considered a one-off failure, or should we give some serious thought to dropping juries altogether?

Herbert Spencer, an english philosopher, once described juries as " a group of 12 people of average ignorance" - In this case at least, the ignorance quotient seems to have been higher than average......

[DangerUXD]

No

[Old_Geezer]

No system is perfect but having your case considered by your peers is much better than having some elite do it.

I think these questions suggest the requirement was not made clear. And a better description as to what the legal definition of "reasonable" is, was sorely lacking.

If there are improvements to be made then maybe it should be to have a group of volunteers who are keen to perform social duty and thus avoid those who see it just as an intrusion into their lives ?

[woofgang]

I have just read through the questions and actually think that while they might be more than a jury usually ask, they are good questions.

[ChillDoubt]

One does recall the old adage:

“A jury is composed of 12 people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty”.

After yesterday, some appear as if they'd have trouble tying their laces and may need a piece of string connecting their mittens.

[jake-the-peg]

We have circumstances where a judge can sit without a jury

Complex fraud cases and where there has been serious jury tampering.

It seems to me likely that some of the jury's issues here were due to the high profile nature of the case and things that they'd heard or seen outside of court.

I would think that perhaps we need a third category

Where a case is so high profile that a truely neutral jury cannot reasonably be expected to be found

[Baldric]

Where am I?
What is this place?
What am I doing here?
Your Honour!

[anotheoldgit]

Certainly not, especially just because of one isolated case.

If those accused of such a simple case of passing on road traffic penalty points had been ordinary persons, this case would have most likely been settled in a Magistrate's court.

[LazyGun]

Some of the questions that were asked though seemed to speak of a fundamental misunderstanding about their role -to me it was a cause for concern- maybe it was that one jury, but asking questions about religion, or asking whether the jury can come to a verdict based upon a reason not given in court and with no evidence to support it -really are worrying.

[sandyRoe]

Passing on points is actually conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Don't think a magistrate's court could deal with that.

[LazyGun]

I quite like Jakes proposal of a category of case so high profile that pre-emptive gossip and speculation have reduced the prospect of finding a truly neutral jury to near-zero- in that case dispense with a jury and have a judge or small panel of judges maybe.

[pdq1]

With a mixed race country speaking 150 languages its no wonder comprehension is at an all time low. We don't know the mix of the jury but even if they were all white English textspeak has crept into our vocabulary and spelling lessons have become almost extinct in our classrooms.

Maybe it wasn't down to syntax and just comprehension and understanding but now the news pervades all and our lives are dominated by their views so why shouldn't the jury be influenced by what they see in the newspapers or the telly. I suspect most of the jurors have a preconceived idea before going to court and the defence council just clouded their opinions.

To ask about a religious view of obeying your marriage partner in a wedding ceremony seems to me entirely just.

[emmie]

no, but having read some of the questions i would say that some of the jurors shouldn't have been selected, not sure which ones, perhaps all?

[ichkeria]

The question about what constitutes 'reasonable doubt' - and the judge's acid reply - were particularly amusing.
Not a reason to abandon trial by jury though.
I'm always puzzled by jury service: I don't know anyone who's ever done it just like I don't know anyone who's ever taken part in an opinion poll

[dave50]

There are more and more people these days who are too stupid, irresponsible and downright ignorant to ever trust them to take jury duty seriously. It should only be entrusted to intelligent, professional people who have some brains.

[ludwig]

I don't think juries have become any more stupid than they used to be.

They must always have gone into their room and speculated wildly and considered evidence that wasn't presented, and brought their individual prejudices to bear on the case. It's just that this one asked questions about it and in so doing revealed the fact they weren't fit for the job.

Frankly it's the risk you take of bringing lay people into the process. I'd sooner live with that though than have the process owned wholly by judges. I wouldn't trust them to any deliver better verdicts than the lay folk.

[AB Editor]

Seems like they were either a) Surprisingly thick or b) Wilfully difficult.

I think the Jury system is fine - it's probably just because of the higher profile of this case that the Jury has gone a bit off.

[boxtops]

There's been so much speculation in the press as to whether VP was in fear and cowering at Huhne, or highly manipulative, that I don't wonder they are confused - but the questions seems very elementary about the rules of decision-making, don't jurors get some form of guidelines?

[emmie]

if you have to explain what marital coercion is, and it's not as though this case hasn't been in the news, then surely something is wrong, the judge seemed to think they weren't up to the job, so there will be a retrial which starts Monday.

[New Judge]

“If those accused of such a simple case of passing on road traffic penalty points had been ordinary persons, this case would have most likely been settled in a Magistrate's court. “

Not so, I’m afraid, AOG. They were both charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. This is an “indictable only” offence which carries a maximum penalty of Life imprisonment and can only be dealt with in the Crown Court.

“To ask about a religious view of obeying your marriage partner in a wedding ceremony seems to me entirely just. “

Only if it was advanced by way of evidence, pdq. I believe the judge made it quite clear that it had not been and so could not be considered.

Jury members receive a reasonable insight into their roles and responsibilities before they sit. They are constantly reminded throughout the trial by counsel as well as the judge of what constitutes evidence and what does not. They also take an oath where they swear to judge the matter solely on the evidence put before them (“…and give a true verdict according to the evidence.")

The questions asked by this particular jury seem to indicate that they either had taken no heed of the information provided to them at various points or that they were either unwilling or unable to absorb it. Both the judge and the prosecutor said that they had come across nothing like it in their considerable experience. It does seem remarkable, for example, that a group of twelve randomly chosen people were unable between them to come up with a definition of "reasonable doubt" for those among them who did not understand the term. Bearing this in mind it seems of bit premature to believe that the jury system should be abandoned on the basis of this one (probably isolated) example. Of course pdq makes a very valid point that in a nation where allcomers seem to be welcome there is an increasing risk that those called to judge their peers may not have as good a grasp of English as they might. That of course is one of the many benefits of unfettered immigration and the encouragement of multiculturalism.

The jury system, whilst not perfect, by and large provides an very good way of having matters of fact decided. It has the added advantage that lawyers have to ensure that they translate the law into language that lay persons can grasp. It prevents the law being even more of a black art than it already appears.

[jake-the-peg]

Now let me see they wanted to know if they could form an opinion that has no facts or evidence to support it.

Is that like NJ just did in coming to the conclusion that the jury was hindered by their ethic background?



or is that different?