WTF Moment of the week

[MintTrav]

I did jury service, and it was a dull case that really could have been dealt with at a magistrate's court - but anyway, the way individuals within the jury can guide and influence others was interesting and concerning.

Not sure what a better solution would be though?

Judges make the decision?

Hell no.

I'd trust a judge over a jury to make the correct verdict more often than not.

I definitely wouldn't.  They are there to ensure the jury is directed correctly, and that the defence and prosecution cases are heard correctly and fairly, and then they determine the sentence based on the jury's verdict.

But judges are no better placed to determine guilt or innocence than a lay-person, and sometimes are so out of touch with reality that they'd be dangerous as a judge & jury.

You would hope judges knew what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant though.

Yes, and they should explain it so the jury understands it as well.

I don't know how much guidance they get, but asking for a definition of 'reasonable doubt' seems sensible to me. The judge's reply on this seemed totally unhelpful.

[The Camel]

I did jury service, and it was a dull case that really could have been dealt with at a magistrate's court - but anyway, the way individuals within the jury can guide and influence others was interesting and concerning.

Not sure what a better solution would be though?

Judges make the decision?

Hell no.

I'd trust a judge over a jury to make the correct verdict more often than not.

I definitely wouldn't.  They are there to ensure the jury is directed correctly, and that the defence and prosecution cases are heard correctly and fairly, and then they determine the sentence based on the jury's verdict.

But judges are no better placed to determine guilt or innocence than a lay-person, and sometimes are so out of touch with reality that they'd be dangerous as a judge & jury.

You would hope judges knew what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant though.

Yes, and they should explain it so the jury understands it as well.

If I was standing trial for a crime I hadn't committed, I would rather trust one judge (three or five even better) than twelves joe schmo's that have been scooped off the street.

I might get 12 Woodseys for goodness sakes.

[kinboshi]

I did jury service, and it was a dull case that really could have been dealt with at a magistrate's court - but anyway, the way individuals within the jury can guide and influence others was interesting and concerning.

Not sure what a better solution would be though?

Judges make the decision?

Hell no.

I'd trust a judge over a jury to make the correct verdict more often than not.

I definitely wouldn't.  They are there to ensure the jury is directed correctly, and that the defence and prosecution cases are heard correctly and fairly, and then they determine the sentence based on the jury's verdict.

But judges are no better placed to determine guilt or innocence than a lay-person, and sometimes are so out of touch with reality that they'd be dangerous as a judge & jury.

You would hope judges knew what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant though.

Yes, and they should explain it so the jury understands it as well.

If I was standing trial for a crime I hadn't committed, I would rather trust one judge (three or five even better) than twelves joe schmo's that have been scooped off the street.

I might get 12 Woodseys for goodness sakes.

You'll be OK.  You're not from Krakow.

[smashedagain]

I would rather put my faith in judges than Joe public. Thankfully twice I've had cases thrown out before they even got chance to swear any Jury in

[atdc21]

I have done jury service and found it very interesting, as has been said the judge is only really an overseer and someone to dish out the penalty if someone is found guilty.
Overall i think its best the way it is, jury deciding not judge,not open to corruption so easily for one reason.
Can see the arguement for not trusting the great british public tho, sometimes they can be testing.

[hotdog]

Any one who thinks our justice system is even close to being good needs a reality check. so 12 random people are plucked off the street, most of whom will not have a clue about the law. Yes the judge will direct them but the law is so complex it is hard for joe public to understand.
I did Jury service when I was 21 and after our first break half the jury members said the man was guilty. It was a joke, when we was discussing the verdict you could tell half of them had not been listening to any of the evidence as they had already made there mind up. I was adamant the man was not guilty as I felt the prosecution did not offer me enough reason to believe he was guilty and, the judge accepted a 10-2 in the end and IMO someone got 11 years for something he did not do!
I personally feel the jurys should be legal experts but it will never happen as it would cost to much money.

Just be glad we don't live in a country where the prosecutor is on attempted murder charges. #oscarpistorious

[The Camel]

In the early 80s I rfemember reading the results of an opinion poll.

Only 90 % of Britons had heard of Maggie Thatcher.

And 70% thought The Sun was a Labour supporting paper.

From that day on I have been wary of trusting the British public in any shape or form.

[kinboshi]

On the other side to that, remember when Paul Gascoigne was in court, and the Judge asked who 'Gazza' was, as he'd never heard of him.

[Mohican]

How out of touch are judges??- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1432139/So-what-exactly-is-shizzle-my-nizzle.html

[kinboshi]

Also, remember Denning the judge who wouldn’t allow the appeal of the Birmingham Six because ‘If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury’…

and

he also said of the Birmingham Six, that if they been hanged we wouldn’t have had to put up with ‘all these campaigns to get them released’.

[DungBeetle]

Camel - I think it's a dangerous road to go down allowing judges to decide guilt.  Effectively you are handing over jury rights to the State.  In my mind a random jury (even if their IQ isn't the best) is far less open to lobbying and politicial coercion.

I don't rate the general awareness of the public.  But I think they'll be honest.  I don't have the same hopes about the State, especially when you look at our current bunch of politicians.

[AndrewT]

Camel - I think it's a dangerous road to go down allowing judges to decide guilt.  Effectively you are handing over jury rights to the State.  In my mind a random jury (even if their IQ isn't the best) is far less open to lobbying and politicial coercion.

I don't rate the general awareness of the public.  But I think they'll be honest.  I don't have the same hopes about the State, especially when you look at our current bunch of politicians.

98% of current cases are without a jury - decided by judge or magistrate.

[DungBeetle]

Is that true?  For criminal trials?

[DungBeetle]

I'm not really that fussed if the State decides if someone has committed a motoring offence, or decides on a divorce.

[MANTIS01]

I did jury service a couple of years ago in a case about a young lad who killed his best friend in a dangerous driving incident. Everybody listened to the case intently and afterwards we discussed it in an intelligent fashion. Good points were proposed for both sides of the argument and we worked through them diligently before everybody agreed on a guilty verdict. I thought the system worked perfectly.

I don't see why the jury need to be legal experts. The reason there's a trial is because there's no conclusive legal proof and often it will be a case of do you believe the testimony of key witnesses or the accused. Let's say I was on the stand wrongly accused of murder, I would prefer 12 regular people to judge whether I am telling the truth rather than 1 judge assessing the cold legal technicalities of the case. Must say the judge himself was superb though.