Jury Trials

[MargeB]

Can someone explain to me why this works, cos I just don't get it. Many cases, for example the Micael J case, revolve around very debatable evidence and difficult and delicate legal principles. So to weigh it all up and to decide the fate of an individual (or society, if the guilty are released), rests not with experts in the field involved, or in legal argument, but on a bunch, excuse me, of punters pulled in off the streets. If I was falsely accused and ended up in court I would be quaking in my boots!

[*mystical*]

i think that people can accuse others on no stable grounds of evidence because the law states that everyone has the right to a fair trial.

I think Michael J is innocent!!!!

In reality.... its his words against theirs.

I think, if its all false allegations then they should be punished, like if MJ was found guilty he would be punished.

If they are making it all up, this means it is purgery!!

[Hippy]

The fundamental right to trial by one's peers is a safeguard against those "experts" piling people in prison for political or vindictive reasons rather than proof.

The experts, politicos and prosecution weirdos can say what they like, but it will still amount to hearsay and opinion as far as the court is concerned, and a jury of ordinary people, bringing with them them the wisdom of the street and we hope perceptions not clouded by prejudice, will give the defendant a fairer trial than if the decision were taken by a tribunal of the bewigged and befuddled.

[jake-the-peg]

 At the time of Magna Carta kings had a really bad habit of finding people guilty so they could confiscate their lands and property - nice little earner - hence the importance of being tried by ones peers.

Of course the real point was to be tried by somebody independent and impartial - that is what a jury should be. Clearly the lawyers cannot be they are being paid by the defendant or the state.

Whether the judge is well that's more open to question.

Of course this only applies to English based legal systems in some European states such as France the magistrate actually investigates the case in some circumstances and in the frence case is answerable to politicians.

In many cases juries have returned wonderfully just verdicts against the will of the judge - these are so called "perverse" verdicts

http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/excuse/lawful.htm

my favorite example is the 1996 case where the peace activists were acquitted of damaging Hawk jets being sent to Indonesia to attack the people in East Timor. The judge nearly had a fit!

Of course now East Timor is independant and Tony Blair gave a wonderful speech about how we'd always supported them. 

I like juries

[mr. piper]

Something that people perhaps don't realise is that in most civilised countries, a jury will only hear witness evidence and the plea of the defendant at length from his defence and of course the prosecution. Any legal technicallity can only be discussed away from the jury. This trial, as have others in the US, creates tv coverage that prohibits a fair trial. All well and good, in this instance.

[netibiza]

I agree with MargeB - the evidence is far too complicated for mere mortals to understand.  Look at the OJ Simpson Case?  Over here in Spain we are tried by 3 judges and not a jury so at least the case is understood.

[jake-the-peg]

Juries can now be dispensed with in some fraud and other cases in the UK.

The "McLibel" case was heard without a jury.

Rather fortunately for McDonalds I suspect!

[landie]

Where necessary, 'Experts' provide an opinion or opinions if there are more than one 'Experts'. The judge may rule on the validity of such evidence to be placed before a jury.

The system of being judged by your peers (the public) works fairly reliably because, by and large, the average citizen is fairly honest and able to reach an objective decision based on the evidence. Each side (Defence and Prosecution) has the opportunity to object to a number of jury applicants who they may feel would sympathise with or against the accused.

[MargeB]

I agree that it is important not to allow tyranny from non-peers. But shouldn't we call trial-by-jury for what it is?: the lesser of two evils? To be honest, I wouldn't put faith enough in my fellow man to be able to decide. I think that much of the time it is outwith the capabilities of most people to be able to weigh up the evidence properly against the legal principles.

Because what is it that is being decided? The Michael Jackson case got me thinking about just this. It's a nightmare! It's just like poker in reverse, just like it: you need to weigh up probabilities and try to decode intentions from reported actions. On top of all this, it may involve a world you know nothing about (think of the Maxwell brothers trial). Mixed in with all this, you have the subtleties of psychological argument (after all, we're talking about people here): do the jury know enough about even the basics of human psychology (it's not common sense) to be able to pass an informed judgement on the person whose fate they decide?

I'm still scared..

[JudgeJ]

Jury trials work well for a number of reasons:

1. The 12 “punters pulled from the street” (well, it’s a bit more sophisticated than that, but the random element is very much maintained) would be unlikely to have any axe to grind against either the defendant or the prosecution.

2. If any individual among the twelve does have such a prejudice and tries to return a verdict contrary to the evidence he will have to convince at least nine of his colleagues to do likewise.

3. Most criminal cases are usually a matter of two differing versions of events. The judge administers matters of law (e.g. rules what may or may not be put to the jury and rules on points of law raised by either side). The jury decides on matters of fact – i.e. which version of events do they believe.

There should be no need for MargeB to fear being judged in this manner. Joe Public is often far more astute and able to determine fact from fiction than many of m’Learned Friends would like us to believe. Joe is also far more socially aware than many Legal Eagles (who remembers questions from judges such as “Who are these ‘Beatles’?” and “What is an I-Pod?”)

None of this, of course, applies in the United States where the administration of justice seems to depend largely upon the entertainment value of the case and the prime-time TV schedules.

 

[JudgeJ]

On a factual note the “McLibel” trial was a civil matter. Juries are only used to decide civil matters in special circumstances – usually involving questions of character. Furthermore there are currently no criminal offences – including serious and complicated frauds - in the United Kingdom (which, of course, excludes Northern Ireland) that are tried by a Judge alone.

The “right to trial by jury” (which implies a choice) is, in the vast majority of cases, no such right at all. Minor offences (generally those punishable by no more than 6 months imprisonment or �5,000 fine) are heard to a conclusion by magistrates, whether the accused pleads guilty or not. These account for around 95% of all prosecutions. Serious offences (e.g. murder, manslaughter, blackmail, rape) must be heard before a judge and jury.

Only with “either way” offences (which, as the term implies, can be tried in either fashion depending upon a number of factors) where the defendant pleads not guilty does he have the right to elect trial before a jury.

It is the government's intention to reduce the number of either way offences and make them triable only by magistrates. It is this that is leading to accusations that they are seeking to remove the right to trial by jury.