News9 mins ago
Isn't It Time To Do Away With Trial By Jury?
http://
There are too many thick people nowadays with no common sense able to sit on a jury to ensure a fair trial. Maybe the judge should decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty and the jury should decide the punishment.
There are too many thick people nowadays with no common sense able to sit on a jury to ensure a fair trial. Maybe the judge should decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty and the jury should decide the punishment.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Judge will tell you not to
//If I were on a jury I would be tempted to google the defendant. Course I would//
and cases have been thrown out because of it
you must decide only on the evidence presented - sworn and cross examined. and not what Mrs Mopp says down the road
I am the internet as having been convicted of fraud - and it was nt even a relation with a near name ! another of my neighbours has been creditted with paedophilia - very very easy to do - done maliciously with s/o he is in dispute with.
//If I were on a jury I would be tempted to google the defendant. Course I would//
and cases have been thrown out because of it
you must decide only on the evidence presented - sworn and cross examined. and not what Mrs Mopp says down the road
I am the internet as having been convicted of fraud - and it was nt even a relation with a near name ! another of my neighbours has been creditted with paedophilia - very very easy to do - done maliciously with s/o he is in dispute with.
I think that the jury system has its flaws, but we should not throw away the baby with the bath water.
I believe that the concept of trial by jury is sound - you can never legislate for the sheer stupidity of some individuals, 'twas ever thus.
I do think the suggestion that defendants remain anonymous is a very sound one - failing that, juries should be sequestered, but that will add inconvenience, not to say expense to the system.
I believe that the concept of trial by jury is sound - you can never legislate for the sheer stupidity of some individuals, 'twas ever thus.
I do think the suggestion that defendants remain anonymous is a very sound one - failing that, juries should be sequestered, but that will add inconvenience, not to say expense to the system.
We have trials where the jurors will have heard of the defendants without Googling them. Some people are high profile, or others are known because the crime was famous.
Did Rolf Harris get a fair trial. The jury had far more information on him than the evidence that came out at the trial?
Would Roald Moat have got a fair trial? His exploits were in the public domain. A jury would arrive at his trial with information they already knew rather than had heard in evidence.
So this woman Googled his name. What, if anything she learned was in the public domain anyway. If she had been on a bus and overheard somebody say "my son is on trial but he didn't do it" would the trial have to be stopped?
The ability to easily find additional information in this technologic age should not mean trial have to be stopped.
How many times have we heard that the jury have acquitted someone on the evidence, and then learned the defendant was in fact a serial rapist but the jury was not allowed to know that.
Did Rolf Harris get a fair trial. The jury had far more information on him than the evidence that came out at the trial?
Would Roald Moat have got a fair trial? His exploits were in the public domain. A jury would arrive at his trial with information they already knew rather than had heard in evidence.
So this woman Googled his name. What, if anything she learned was in the public domain anyway. If she had been on a bus and overheard somebody say "my son is on trial but he didn't do it" would the trial have to be stopped?
The ability to easily find additional information in this technologic age should not mean trial have to be stopped.
How many times have we heard that the jury have acquitted someone on the evidence, and then learned the defendant was in fact a serial rapist but the jury was not allowed to know that.
Gromit - I understand the issue in this case to be that the woman was gormless enough not only to advise her fellow jurers that she had researched the defendant, but that as a result of that research, she was altering her vote, and that is where the corruption of the trial occurs.
For all we know, all the other eleven did the same, thing, but kept quiet about it!
For all we know, all the other eleven did the same, thing, but kept quiet about it!
No.
The alternative of having an elite just decide between them would be an affront to the normal citizen. It would be appropriate for continuous rioting to be the result were that ever seriously considered. And I have less confidence in the public deciding sentence but not verdict. Matching the punishment is even more difficult than deciding guilt.
"Thick" people should be weeded out during the selection process anyway.
The alternative of having an elite just decide between them would be an affront to the normal citizen. It would be appropriate for continuous rioting to be the result were that ever seriously considered. And I have less confidence in the public deciding sentence but not verdict. Matching the punishment is even more difficult than deciding guilt.
"Thick" people should be weeded out during the selection process anyway.
“One way to avoid being selected for a jury (so I hear) is to arrive in a smart suit and tie carrying a copy of' The Times' . The defence will want jurors who look as 'thick' as possible.”
The right of the defence to challenge a jury member without good cause was abolished in 1988, Eddie. The prosecution still retains the right but the guidance on doing so makes it clear that it should be exercised in extremely limited circumstances and is effectively restricted to cases involving terrorism or national security. Additionally the Attorney General must be consulted before doing so.
“The info she learned is in the public domain. So I do not agree the trial has been corrupted.”
The problem with that, Gromit, is that jurors take an oath to try the matter based solely on the evidence they hear in court. Using other information therefore breaks that oath (and effectively corrupts the trial, especially if one or a small minority of jury members has that information and the others do not).
There are lots of weaknesses in the jury system but a suitable replacement is not easy to construct. I don’ think it’s fair to say there are too many thick people around for it to succeed. But I do think that jurors do not appreciate the seriousness of their duties or the potential consequences of their non-compliance with the rules. Perhaps some better briefing before selection might help.
The right of the defence to challenge a jury member without good cause was abolished in 1988, Eddie. The prosecution still retains the right but the guidance on doing so makes it clear that it should be exercised in extremely limited circumstances and is effectively restricted to cases involving terrorism or national security. Additionally the Attorney General must be consulted before doing so.
“The info she learned is in the public domain. So I do not agree the trial has been corrupted.”
The problem with that, Gromit, is that jurors take an oath to try the matter based solely on the evidence they hear in court. Using other information therefore breaks that oath (and effectively corrupts the trial, especially if one or a small minority of jury members has that information and the others do not).
There are lots of weaknesses in the jury system but a suitable replacement is not easy to construct. I don’ think it’s fair to say there are too many thick people around for it to succeed. But I do think that jurors do not appreciate the seriousness of their duties or the potential consequences of their non-compliance with the rules. Perhaps some better briefing before selection might help.
I agree with you New Judge, but there will always be jurors who know more about a case than others. A jury might be trying someone for a driving offence. Yet half the jury might be non drivers. The jury would have different levels of competence.
The other problem is that this probably happens all the time. This case was stopped because she was daft enough to tell what she had done. But there will be thousands who do it. The policy now seems to be that it is not a problem if you don't tell anyone.
Does that mean there are thousands of trials which should have been stopped?
The other problem is that this probably happens all the time. This case was stopped because she was daft enough to tell what she had done. But there will be thousands who do it. The policy now seems to be that it is not a problem if you don't tell anyone.
Does that mean there are thousands of trials which should have been stopped?
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Strands #260 “Coming Up For...
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.