Isn't It Time To Do Away With Trial By Jury?

[dave50]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164477/Juror-narrowly-avoids-jail-causing-sex-attack-trial-collapse-Googled-defendant.html
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.

[fiction-factory]

>"There are too many thick people nowadays with no common sense able to sit on a jury to ensure a fair trial."

I seemed to have misses any statistics that show the significant increase in the number of thick people. Have you got a link please?

[fiction-factory]

missed not misses

[janbee]

I've always been against the jury system for exactly the reasons you mention Dave. Trial by Jury, trial by media , and worse, trial by AB members.

[mikey4444]

We can't Jurors from doing some research on the internet, but I can't see that is justification for changing our centuries old method of trying people.
I too would like to see how widespread this practise is.

[hc4361]

Would it be at all possible for the jurors not to know the defendant's name during the trial? The jury could be called in after the defendant has confirmed his name and other credentials.

[jim360]

There are certain aspects of the jury system that are frustrating, but "thick people" isn't necessarily the most significant one of them. Most juries can be expected to have a reasonable spectrum of people who as a group are capable of performing their task effectively and without making such errors as this one.

At least, probably. The amount of secrecy surrounding jury decisions is large enough that it can be difficult to judge this. What led to a particular verdict? It seems to me not unreasonable that part of the duties of a jury ought to be preparing a small explanatory note for their decision. It might turn out to reveal flaws in their methods, or might even turn out to guide the prosecution/ defence counsels in a helpful way.

Certainly without some small amount of transparency, it's hard to see how widespread any problem of "bad" jury decisions actually is, and what the causes might be.

[retrocop]

I am more perturbed about the mental faculties of some judges!!!!
Your average man/woman on the street is far more in touch with what goes on around them in the "real world"

[woofgang]

If the issue is research during a trial then the solution is surely simple. Sequester jurors and confiscate mobile phones. Personally I don't think that one swallow makes a summer and I too, would like to see your evidence regarding any increase in "thickness"

[jim360]

It's a judge's job to be in touch with the law. The "real world" doesn't come into it.

[Retrochic]

I think the system is totally outdated. The jury should consist of a number of expert witnesses appropriate to the case,who can judge evidence objectively and come to a decision based on their knowledge , not 'gut feeling' which seems to be the system used these days. It is no more effective now than it was 200 years ago when the jury was made up of landowners and dignitaries.

[Hypognosis]

In the dim and distant past, the jurors were *required* to be peers of the defendant, that is personally acquianted with them, at a minimum; close friends were the ideal.

Opportunities for abuse were wide open but at least the was no call for "character witness" tactics, in those days.

In the modern age, jurors can only measure the defendent against their friends and peers.

HC's idea is interesting. If the defendent remained anonymous throughout, hidden in a black box, for good measure, then the jury can decide based solely on the facts of the case.

[retrocop]

jim360
Tell that to the defendant.!!
"Errrrr Officer.Can you explain.You say you saw the defendant coming out the discotheque.What is a discotheque?"
Yes. I mean knowledge of the real world does smooth the wheels of justice.

[fiction-factory]

I haven't heard the term 'discotheque' for about 30 years

[jim360]

To be sure, there were some moments in a recent trial I was in that were mildly amusing for similar reasons, eg the discussions surrounding Whatsapp and "is that like Instagram?", or the incredibly long amount of time taken to subtract 70 from 354, or some other such simple sum.

[retrocop]

fiction-factory
hence "retro" :-)

[hc4361]

retrocop, the judge would be fully aware what a discotheque is but he cannot assume that every member of the jury does, that is why these seemingly absurd questions are asked. He has already read the case papers and if he didn't know what a disco was he wouldn't wait until the trial to find out.

[Hypognosis]

The problem with the "expert panel" jury model, Retrochic, is that opens up the possibilty of accusations of 'rigging' the result - 12 establishment figures plus the judge would mean most crims would not stand a chance and bleat about 'unfair trial'.

I think that was the thinking behindvthe random ballot - it was to undermine any attempts at accusations of unfairly biased jury selection.

[retrocop]

hc
I can assure you I have had to explain more modern terms to both judges and stipendary magistrates who were at a genuine loss.
A certain Mr Phipps( Stipendary) of Marylebone was particularly unworldly wise.

[Hypognosis]

Judge Rowan Atkinson, presiding

[EDDIE51]

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. This selection of Jurors is one of the main reasons that we get stories like this, defence solicitors pride themselves on their skill in 'selecting' a jury.