[Closed] Trial by Jury - outdated?

Most lawyers agree that most juries 'get it right' most of the time. And the appeals system is designed to deal with the exceptions.

You only need to look at the US court system (and other courts around the world - see Turkey - with politically appointed judges) to understand how politicians can pick the judges that give the judgements that they want to achieve.

I'd vote for trial by combat as seen on Game of Thrones.

Didn't we do the judges who fell asleep a while back? Not all safe there before we get into politics around appointment. In complex trials perhaps a more detailed selection than random though and add it to employment law that the company pays it as holiday up to the 2 weeks and government picks it up after that

My opinion is that democracy holds us back. Having the general public make important decisions on things they don't fully understand or have the capacity to comprehend, is something of a flawed process. It's a good system, but with lots of room for improvement.

This includes jury service. And I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but there should be at least some kind of minimum requirement, in understanding, compassion, balanced views, etc.

looking for "perfection" in any system of law is likely to be a fruitless task, personally I think trial by Jury is about as good as we can do right now, and yes obviously it's going to be swayed by modern societal norms and pressures but placing too much power/control over justice in a very small groups hands would simply create a more easily corrupted elite...

Carry on as we are I reckon.

If a political party wants to be tough on benefit fraud but lenient on corporate tax evasion (random example :-)) and appoints judges to enforce this; surely the sentencing rather than the verdict is where they will make more of a difference?

Having been on jury service and seeing how it works, it would be very difficult to manipulate but judges do play a key role in terms of the direction they give.  It's really the judges that are the problem.

I had the displeasure of repeatedly serving a lowish level judge in glasgow many many times at lunchtimes.

The guy would drink a bottle of wine and become a total arse hole.

Reducing the people who decide someone fate to 3 is a ****ing stupid idea. A jury of 12 has a much better chance of overuling a couple of ****ers.

or 12 people to stupid or bored to get out of jury service

Having just been selected for jury service, you can't get out of it, you can try and get out if it but ultimately it's a £1000 fine and criminal record if you don't turn up.

add it to employment law that the company pays it as holiday up to the 2 weeks and government picks it up after that

+1, if they make it compulsory and you can't really time it or plan for it, so it should be paid properly.  It's not like statutory maternity pay which most sensible people can plan ahead for (even if it's not planned you've got 9 months to figure out how to make up the shortfall).

My opinion is that democracy holds us back. Having the general public make important decisions on things they don’t fully understand or have the capacity to comprehend, is something of a flawed process. It’s a good system, but with lots of room for improvement.

This includes jury service. And I’m not entirely sure what the answer is, but there should be at least some kind of minimum requirement, in understanding, compassion, balanced views, etc.

I try and think of it the other way around, it's the final check and balance on the system.  I'm sure there's still laws that could be deemed unfair (the age of homosexual consent was only made consistent in 2000 for example), I'd like to think that a trail in 1999 (if there had been one) of a 17yr old couple wouldn't have been criminalised by a jury of normal people. There's obviously times where that works the other way, when another driver gets off because "the sun was in my eyes" is a good example.

Complex fraud is the one that gets brought up as there was a high profile case that collapsed a few years ago, but the alternative would be to pay PWC or Deolite to be both poacher and gamekeeper which would probably be even more expensive.

Having just read the death penalty thread

I suspect/hope that what keyboard warriors type on forums and what they really do are not the same thing

As above, in an imperfect world it works fairly well. There is a decent amount of balance in UK courts and as above the appeals process when things go wrong.

My suggestion – 3 judges, who cannot communicate to each other in any way during the trial, must return a unanimous verdict.

What if if they don’t agree? Or are you only requiring unanimous guilty verdicts, and assuming one dissenting voice should enable acquittal?  Why do you assume judges communicating would reduce the prospects of a fair outcome?  Perhaps one spotted something significant the others missed?  Why do you need a law degree and a minimum of 5 yrs experience to hear the evidence and decide the facts?

I suspect/hope that what keyboard warriors type on forums and what they really do are not the same thing

I suggested a rather outlandish solution on that thread too -  I meant more the comments saying that a jury would be unwilling to convict someone if they thought they might see the gallows; along with those saying that a jury of the public would be fallible and therefore unsuited to an irreversible capital sentence.

Josh Vegas - I had the displeasure of repeatedly serving a lowish level judge in glasgow many many times at lunchtimes.

are you sure?  Judges and Sheriffs are normally provided with meals in the court so they don’t risk mingling with witnesses, lawyers, and the accused in the queue for a boots meal deal.

My suggestion – 3 judges, who cannot communicate to each other in any way during the trial, must return a unanimous verdict.

What if if they don’t agree? Or are you only requiring unanimous guilty verdicts, and assuming one dissenting voice should enable acquittal?

perhaps treat a hung bench like a hung jury, require unanimous for some crimes, majority verdict for others.

 Why do you assume judges communicating would reduce the prospects of a fair outcome?

Unlike 12 strangers on a jury, I was thinking that the most senior judge would impart his views on the others, who would automatically agree in an attempt to further their careers.

 Perhaps one spotted something significant the others missed?  Why do you need a law degree and a minimum of 5 yrs experience to hear the evidence and decide the facts?

I would hope someone who spent their career in courts would have a better understanding of policing, judicial process, and the criminal psyche than someone doing 2 weeks every 10 years maximum.

and to reply to myself - I asked "outdated" rather than "do you like it". Trial by jury predates forensics, CCTV etc.

A jury was essentially random people determining if a stranger was lying while being questioned. Start saying "90% DNA match" or "does this bloke in a suit look like this grainy photo of someone in a hoody", and I suggest it is no longer the ideal solution to be reliant on the layman

are you sure?

We're talking spendy restaurant not a wander down to tesco at breaktime.

Yes i'm sure. However i couldnt tell you if he came from a session or was day off when he visited.

He was scummy posh ****er though.

and to reply to myself – I asked “outdated” rather than “do you like it”.

Not outdated as trial by jury is consistent with a democracy. i.e. the jury is the "representative" of the society.

My suggestion – 3 judges, who cannot communicate to each other in any way during the trial, must return a unanimous verdict.

I want to be one of the judges.  😀

Better still let me be the Only judge.

A judge can overrule a jury as far as I know. So on that basis, there's not really any need to revert to judge only trials. So there is that safety net.

Edit(Google). Seems they can only overturn guilty verdicts.

I did jury duty on a case involving a "special needs" man accused of molesting the neighbour's son. Three days of watching and listening to the defendant convinced me that he was a very cunning bloke who had learned to manipulate over-zealous SS and health professionals. I also had a strong feeling he had been set up as a "scalp" by the Police and CPS. I voiced my concerns in the jury room but the reality was that we went home on a Thrursday undecided as I and two others were not convinced of his guilt but by Friday, with the prospect of returning on Monday looming, we all managed to agree on a "guilty" verdict. The judge reassured us that the convicted man would not go to prison but would be put into the system and given further assessment and treatment, which was probably the best possible outcome.  So it wasn't perfect but the right thing was done.

I meant more the comments saying that a jury would be unwilling to convict someone if they thought they might see the gallows; along with those saying that a jury of the public would be fallible and therefore unsuited to an irreversible capital sentence.

That's not the jury's fault, it's the standard of evidence required - beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all doubt.

Trial by jury is probably the best system in most cases.

I think there is an argument for replacing juries in some cases, where the technical details of the case most people would really not be able to follow, corporate fraud etc. I think at the moment it is far too easy to sew doubt on complex subjects when dealing with laymen. It is half the problem with the crimes of the rich currently going unpunished (the other half being a lack of political will to go after those crimes).

But I don't know what the replacement system should be, or who decides which trials should be by jury or other means.

You can already have trial by judge, it's an option that is available now.

Don't ask me the criteria either but it is possible.

Yes it’s outdated.

But what it does offer is  a hundred or so years of precedent that form the Law as we live and breath it.

There are legislative actions in place for miscarriage of justice, rights of appeal that are not only heard in local Crown Courts but Supreme Courts and the fabled EU Courts. You have the right to challenge, this is correct.

Juries can be dismissed and dissolved, new appointments made to mitigate the issues. They can be challenged by both parties, so it’s a fair representation of True and Fair Men.

I wouldn’t trust a Judge of this country to tie his own shoelaces on thier own. It’s been well documented that they are white, privileged, opinionated and often have an outcome in thier minds before entering the bench.

Once the Law accepts all facets of society to be come inclusive and enter the bench then I may change my mind. As is it’s a very difficult and hard path to even become a Barrister in the first instance, and financially crippling for those who come from a less well off background. So the choice pool is restricted to wealthy privileged subordinates who enter Inns based upon connections made at the Big Tier Universities. Then play out an existence in a big firm and only get recognised once they retire, then if supported get the call up to become a Judge.

By the time a Judge is qualified, the years of hearing the same old stories have jaded thier view and the outcome is already played out in thier minds.

Juries by nature are ignorant of the true facts and motivation of both parties in dispute, they are spoon fed narrative that often is difficult to comprehend or engage with. End up confused or have made thier minds up on the basis of social upbringing and ignorance or political bias.

Yes it’s outdated, the whole bloody system is.

But....

Recently the trial for the pilot at the Shoreham plane crash was in court, and the place was packed with not only audience but juries too. It would be hard in cases like that for miscarriages of justice to occur, but the local bloke who nicked a charity donation box becuse he’s had no food for a month then ends up in court in front of some snooty pompous judge leading a jury down the “look at him, he’s a thief a common thief that’s all” without taking any mitigating factors into consideration is definitely a miscarriage of justice and bias.

IMO

Not all court cases go in front of a jury. Lesser cases are only in front of a sheriff

Juries should be vetted certainly. If they were all white middle-class Tory voters I think the correct verdict would be reached each time.

Trial by jury is probably the best system in most cases.

Show us the evidence? 🙂

Plenty of countries that are not ex-colonial dominions of the UK have different systems.Is not a tad arrogant to assume our system is best?

My own personal experience of jury service was that we got the right result despite a couple who were determined to find the accused not guilty.If they had been more assertive/persuasive instead of just stubborn then I could see how they could have carried others along with them.

Plenty of countries that are not ex-colonial dominions of the UK have different <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">systems.</span>

Curious as to the examples there? (genuinely haven't a clue)

ayjaydoubleyou - perhaps treat a hung bench like a hung jury, require unanimous for some crimes, majority verdict for others.

But in England and Wales hung juries (<10 people agreeing) often result in retrials - its hard to see that as fair for the accused, the witnesses or particularly efficient.  (That doesn't happen in Scotland because juries are made up of 15 people and require a simple majority - partly because the requirements for corroboration adds an extra safeguard).

Unlike 12 strangers on a jury, I was thinking that the most senior judge would impart his views on the others, who would automatically agree in an attempt to further their careers.

I'm not sure that is really an issue.  Appellate Judges highlight dissenting views fairly frequently.  Well thought out and argued reasoning probably more likely to further your career than simply towing the line.  I'd certainly be more concerned that there are "quiet, anything for an easy life" people and"dominant personalities with strongly held opinions" on a jury, than believing that people who have spent their whole career arguing legal points suddenly becomes a shrinking violet.

I would hope someone who spent their career in courts would have a better understanding of policing, judicial process, and the criminal psyche than someone doing 2 weeks every 10 years maximum.

Firstly, its the prosecutor's job to elicit evidence not the job of judge or jury to make assumptions about how things should have been, or are normally done.  Secondly, you could have "professional jurors" without necessarily needing to send them to law school, spend decades practicing the art of advocacy, or pay them over £100k p.a.

and to reply to myself – I asked “outdated” rather than “do you like it”. Trial by jury predates forensics, CCTV etc.

A jury was essentially random people determining if a stranger was lying while being questioned. Start saying “90% DNA match” or “does this bloke in a suit look like this grainy photo of someone in a hoody”, and I suggest it is no longer the ideal solution to be reliant on the layman

Thats why we have expert witnesses to help jurors understand such evidence.  Its the prosecution and defence job to cross examine witnesses to determine their credibility and reliability - and make sure the evidence is understood.  The jury should not normally be considering CCTV to see if it shows Mr X, a witness (often a police officer) should do the identification.  The jury can use the quality of the CCTV to help assess how credible/reliable that evidence is.

Curious as to the examples there? (genuinely haven’t a clue)

Most of Europe!  The role of the judge is totally different - acting as Inquisitor to try to establish the truth, rather than as independent referee between two adversarial parties who do the arguing.  Typically no Jury and so much more relaxed rules of evidence (as Judges assumed to be more able to balance dodgy evidence).

I'd take humans out of the equation altogether - trial by robot judge gets my vote. Given you're supposed to make judgments based on the facts presented in accordance with the law (i.e. no emotion or prejudice) then once the machine learning & AI is sorted so they can interpret the law at least as well as a crusty old human judge then why not? :p

Didn’t we do the judges who fell asleep a while back?