Trial by Jury

[Skullheadhq]

According to some 'Trial by Jury' is a fundamental right. But why?
Jury are (almost) always people who know nothing of the juridical system and are just random people. Why should these amateurs be allowed to judge about if someone is guilty or not?
People that aren't trained or educated for this. And with topics like 'Child Rape', wouldn't the jury judge someone based on their feelings instead of evidence? And what if scientific evidence is involved in a crime, and the jury doesn't know anything about that level of science. Can they then convict someone based upon evidence they don't understand?

Some argue that it is a checker against state power. But isn't a judge independed?

security of tenure means that judges cannot be removed from office on the basis of the decisions they make. They can therefore make decisions without fear of dismissal by the government or having their salaries reduced. Judges can only be dismissed if they can be shown to be corrupt.


and

Second, it is a contempt of court for any servant of the government to try to interfere with the decision of judges or comment on a case in public or in Parliament. Any interference would result in legal action taken against the government member concerned. This rule prevents any political pressure being put on judges.

*note that this is for Britain, the country where everybody copied the Jury system from.

So judges are not puppets of the state, so why need a jury for a fair trial?


I think that 'Trial by Jury' is terribly outdated. Yes, in medieval times they could handle cases like 'He stole my cow!'. But it cannot be used in modern cases where scientific evidence is used, so why keep it alive?

[Beskar]

The fundamental right when exposed to the evidence, a jury of your peers, representing the common person finds you reasonably guilty.

The judge does the sentence anyway, not the Jury. The judge can pass a harsh sentence or a very lenient one. Reminds me of that story where a boy called Stephen was kidnapped and sexually abused for years, the judge gave the offender 2 years ontop of 7 years for another convinction, or similar.

So the judge has the power to do what they want anyway, even if it is give ridiculous sentences.

[Skullheadhq]

The fundamental right when exposed to the evidence, a jury of your peers, representing the common person finds you reasonably guilty.

But is the 'common' person smart enough to make such a decision, a decision sometimes of life and death (In America )? A judge can't let him free if the jury says 'guilty'. So stupid people can harm an innocent man.

And 'reasonably guilty' is not guilty enough.

[Fragony]

I'm with skull here, it would make more sense if a jury would have a say, as in non-binding suggesting, in the actual punishment imho. They are not legal experts.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is the same as democracy. It is not perfect, but it is the best we can come up with.

[Skullheadhq]

The best we can come up with is get some idiots of the street, place them in a courthouse and let them decide about things they have absolutely zero understanding of is the best thing we can come up with? I'm starting to feel sad for humanity.

Also, many countries don't have trial by jury and it works fine there. Only America and the Commonwealth countries (and former colonies) have it (and some countries only for serious offences).

[Kadagar_AV]

The best we can come up with is get some idiots of the street, place them in a courthouse and let them decide about things they have absolutely zero understanding of is the best thing we can come up with? I'm starting to feel sad for humanity.

Also, many countries don't have trial by jury and it works fine there. Only America and the Commonwealth countries (and former colonies) have it (and some countries only for serious offences).


Look at the alternative... A judge having unlimited power without influence from "the normal man".

[Skullheadhq]

Look at the alternative... A judge having unlimited power without influence from "the normal man".

A judge cannot give (for example) the death sentence because somebody stole a bread (at least not in western countries). The judge has to give punishment within a 'punishment range' for the offence he's dealing wi. With our without jury. So far for 'unlimited power'

As well, who do you want to establish your guilt. Me or a judge who learned for it?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sometimes juries give you more just and independent verdicts than judges (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/woman-prisoner-sent-solitary-reporting-rape-guard):

In the first assault, Ortiz was "fondled" by the guard, who then told her "I'll get you tomorrow, watch." In the second, which took place after she had appealed for help, the guard returned while Ortiz was asleep and raped her. The assaults took place back in 1996. Subsequently, Ortiz sued both prison officials in federal court for doing nothing to protect her from the guard and punishing her instead. A jury awarded her $625,000 in damages.

But Bright and Jordan appealed the verdict, and the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals "ruled 2-1 that the prison officials had qualified immunity, shielding them from paying damages" to Ortiz. The third judge, however, issued an outraged dissent.

CR

[Pannonian]

Theoretically, a jury chosen from one's peers is less out of touch with the real world than specialists in the legal world. In the UK, High Court judges are renowned for living on a different planet. I've heard at least one RL story of a highly ranked judge being "out there". He was eventually removed, but only after causing some stir, and considering his rank, for some time.

[gaelic cowboy]

A judge cannot give (for example) the death sentence because somebody stole a bread (at least not in western countries). The judge has to give punishment within a 'punishment range' for the offence he's dealing wi. With our without jury. So far for 'unlimited power'

As well, who do you want to establish your guilt. Me or a judge who learned for it?

A jury cannot order execution either so your theory is falling a bit there.

A jury is often directed to certain decisions due to the evidence so they don't just make there own decisions.

And lastly juries ensure we must prove guilt as opposed to innocence as in most trial by judge systems.

[Skullheadhq]

A jury cannot order execution either so your theory is falling a bit there..

But they can influence it by their decision of guilty or not guilty


A jury is often directed to certain decisions due to the evidence so they don't just make there own decisions.

What about scientific evidence?


And lastly juries ensure we must prove guilt as opposed to innocence as in most trial by judge systems.

Please explain how preassumption until proven guilty is better protected in a jury system then in a judge only system.

[Pannonian]

Please explain how preassumption until proven guilty is better protected in a jury system then in a judge only system.

If 3 jurors aren't convinced of guilt, there can be no guilty verdict. At least 10 out of 12 jurors must agree, to return a verdict. Otherwise no verdict, guilty or innocent, and the status quo is no guilt unless proven.

[Ironside]

Look at the alternative... A judge having unlimited power without influence from "the normal man".

Usually there's more than one judge in more severe crimes (higher than fines). Sweden got the nämndemän (lay assessors), while Austria have a few combinations. So no unlimited power to one judge. You'll need several.

[Brenus]

Judges? How do they become judges?
Elected, or nominated? If they need a minimum years of study, that means they are coming from a fringe of population…
So it could be seen by some as just a justice of class, Judges coming from the bourgeoisie and they will never sentence their own.
So to steal a piece of bread will be heavily punish as it frightens free market economy and the property rights… I push a little bit but…
A jury will balance as some of them will understand why some will steal a bread…

In the Middle Ages, the persons who were judging had to know the accused as they were able to see why he/she did what he/she did.
Nowadays, a jury shouldn’t know the accused.
And both with good reasons

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Trial by jury replaced trial by torture or something like that didn't it?

Anyway, clearly it is a mistake to talk about it in terms of fundamental rights.

[Pannonian]

Judges? How do they become judges?
Elected, or nominated? If they need a minimum years of study, that means they are coming from a fringe of population…
So it could be seen by some as just a justice of class, Judges coming from the bourgeoisie and they will never sentence their own.
So to steal a piece of bread will be heavily punish as it frightens free market economy and the property rights… I push a little bit but…
A jury will balance as some of them will understand why some will steal a bread…


It's a valid argument to say that, while the law may declare someone is guilty, a juror isn't going to declare someone guilty. "If we say he's guilty of that, half the country is guilty by the same argument."

[gaelic cowboy]

But they can influence it by their decision of guilty or not guilty


First off if your are guilty then you are guilty and the system has a set list of punishments for the verdict given.



What about scientific evidence?

Is that not my point scientific evidence may prove the accused did not rape someone even if several witnesses said they did so they will be directed to ignore it how would this be different with a judge??????




Please explain how preassumption until proven guilty is better protected in a jury system then in a judge only system.

Precisely because they are laymen and not in an ivory tower of rules and regs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Judge is no more an expert in the evidence than the jury, he is only an expert in law, so he is no more qualified to determine guilt. Further, as there is only one or three judges usually the margin for error in terms of "reasonable doubt" is much higher than with twelve jurors.

It's also less expensive to bribe three people than twelve.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the Idea is that if 12 people of different views and different backgrounds can all be convinced of someones guilt by the case presented beyond reasonable doubt then they probably are guilty. The main flaws outside of this would be evidence not making it or being tampered with, and different levels of skill for defence lawyers and prosecution lawyers. I have personally always thought we should choose the prosecutor based on thier defence team, if they have the best team of lawyers in the country then we send our best out against them, if its billy no money with some fresh faced lawyer free of charge then we send out a novice of our own...

Aren't the jurors supposed to professional's or in professions that are considered to have intelligent members, or can some guy on the dole or working in a factory get called up as well ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aren't the jurors supposed to professional's or in professions that are considered to have intelligent members, or can some guy on the dole or working in a factory get called up as well ?

Being a Liberal democracy, if you can vote you can be called. Presumably that only excludes the homeless.

[LittleGrizzly]

Gah! another one of those misfacts I picked up somewhere incorrectly then. I do remember hearing about an initative a few years back to help the homeless vote...

[Megas Methuselah]

Being a Liberal democracy, if you can vote you can be called. Presumably that only excludes the homeless.

Funny. I'd just like to add a comment that not long ago, the homeless were given the franchise over here. I was like, "What? They weren't allowed to vote before? Damn."

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the problem was not so much they are not allowed to vote as they live on the streets, over here a voter registration card gets sent to your home address, with homless people having no home address they didn't have anywhere to send these cards, more like an unfortunate consequence of being homeless than an extra punishment or at least thats why they couldn't/can't vote in the UK anyway

[Pannonian]

Being a Liberal democracy, if you can vote you can be called. Presumably that only excludes the homeless.

"You have been selected for jury service. Your name was randomly selected from the electoral register."

[Kadagar_AV]

It has, over and over, been proved that people function best in a tribal society.

IE, if someone did something wrong, the "tribe" knows about it and will act accordingly.

We are, so to say, MADE for this. This huge society where no one known anyone is against our nature. And thus is of course a trial where the participants only know the suspect by face against nature.

A jury is just an (pathetic) attempt to get some of this tribal logic back.

[Fragony]

Look at the alternative... A judge having unlimited power without influence from "the normal man".

Something to say for that. A lot goes wrong here because some judges are from another planet. A rediculously violent Turkish mobster was allowed on leave to watch what his wive hatched. 'You will come back right?' Sure! 'promise?' Of course, you can trust me I'm pimp 'OK NOW LET'S GET NAKED!'

ok I made up the last part

Turk -> Turkey
judges absolutely flabberghasted.

One of MANY screwups

[Skullheadhq]

Something to say for that. A lot goes wrong here because some judges are from another planet. A rediculously violent Turkish mobster was allowed on leave to watch what his wive hatched. 'You will come back right?' Sure! 'promise?' Of course, you can trust me I'm pimp 'OK NOW LET'S GET NAKED!'

ok I made up the last part

Turk -> Turkey
judges absolutely flabberghasted.

One of MANY screwups

And this wouldn't have happened with a jury?

[Fragony]

And this wouldn't have happened with a jury?

No I don't think so, I am changing my position the orgahs make sense.

[Skullheadhq]

No I don't think so, I am changing my position the orgahs make sense.

Juries can't detain someone, that's still up to the judge.

[Fragony]

Juries can't detain someone, that's still up to the judge.

Not sure how it works, but limiting the power of the judge sounds fine. Escpecially here as they are appointed for life.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Judges handle pre-trial motions, bail decisions etc. No jury would have kept that perp from Turkey. Perhaps the alleged criminal in question should have mentioned that he intended to watch the birth on youtube from Ankara.

In the USA, it is possible in most civil cases and in some jurisdictions in criminal cases as well, for the defendant/respondant to request trial by judge and avoid a jury. The key part there is that the plaintiff/state does not have such a right.

Judges do not merely moderate the debate and render sentence. It is (usually) within the judge's purview to "set aside" a jury verdict that she deems to be completely out of step with the facts of the case or the normal application of the relevant laws. Obviously, this sort of decision can be and is appealed, but the judge can step in to halt a jury that is rendering a whacky verdict. Perhaps TinCow and/or Andres could touch on this more?

In addition, the judge's ability to render sentence is often curtailed by legislation that mandates certain minimum and/or maximum penalties for a given offense. These limitations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Do you not think Judges can use emotial instead of logic when making a verdict? :embarassed:

[Skullheadhq]

Do you not think Judges can use emotial instead of logic when making a verdict? :embarassed:

I don't think such a judge will keep his job for very long, and all his verdicts would be reversed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do you not think Judges can use emotial instead of logic when making a verdict? :embarassed:

Judges are supposed to rule according to the law, adhering to legal precedent and preferencing fact over emotional response. They are, however, as human as any of us, so there is little doubt that emotion does influence things at least part of the time.


All in all, I prefer the system of trial by jury. Juries may be of mixed ability but generally consist of people who are trying to decide a verdict according to the facts presented. Trial before a tribunal is really the only alternative that holds any real value as an alternative, as there is more than one who has to rule a particular way for that result to be effected. Trial before a single judge as a habitual approach would lend itself far too readily to corruption in one form or another.

The public preference, as can be discerned from any number of examples, is for trial by media. Remember that most of our jurors being empaneled across the USA today would be unable to locate Ghana on a non-interactive map, could not name the Majority Leader in the US Senate, and wouldn't be able to distinguish whether a particular quotation was more likely to have been penned by Nietzche than by Aristotle. On the other hand, they are well aware of Brett Michaels' Apprentice success, are fully briefed on Taylor Swift's having been "dissed" at the Grammy awards, and could offer "informed" insight on the guilt/innocence of the alleged murderer of UVA lacrosse player Love.

[Fragony]

I don't think such a judge will keep his job for very long, and all his verdicts would be reversed.

Ha a severe alcoholic judge was protected for ten years even if they knew she was always drunk, lt got too much when she didn't show up in court for a week and they found her home on the floor laying in her own crap. A lot is wrong here and not just the judges, just google Joris Demmink. On a safe computer.

[Husar]

It's also less expensive to bribe three people than twelve.

That's wrong, the twelve guys can be paid off with a hundred bucks each but the guys in the ivory towers will want thousands each to make it worthwhile.

The differences is that the judges are held to a higher standard and are supposed to look at the evidence more objectively than a bunch of street rabble who think they have better things to do anyway and just want to get out of there.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of the British constitution (despite New Labour's attempts) and this is the best argument ever made (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U) as to why it should stay that way.

For those youngsters who are not old enough to know the context, it's a satire on the infamous Jeremy Thorpe trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Thorpe), where the establishment judge was not very far from Cook's caricature.