NationStates Jolt Archive

A long OP but hey, Kyronea wanted to know what I thought, and I want to explain my point of view properly...

I'm not impressed with trial by jury. The more of them I see, the less impressed I am.
FYI, I am a court reporter. I spend a lot of my working life in court, so I am reasonably knowledgeable about what goes on there.

Juries are central to the legal system of the UK (the only legal system I'm really familiar with) not to mention the US and a fair few other countries.
Jury members are drawn from a cross-section of society, not necessarily people with any legal knowledge, but able to use their common sense and understanding of real life in order to make decisions. The right to be tried by jury is an important part of UK law, and it's a right you can insist upon if you are accused of any one of a pretty wide range of offences.

This is what bothers me: You're basically getting 12 random people in off the street, putting them in a totally unfamiliar environment, bombarding them with information for days (usually weeks) on end, and then expecting them to cope. Not only cope, but make rational and very important decisions based on what they've seen and heard. Sometimes the evidence they are given is truly horrific - even to me, and I'm fairly used to it. Sex offences are particularly bad, of course, and I once covered a child porn case which was so bad that I very nearly threw up on a policeman while he was presenting the evidence. Which would have been unprofessional, to say the least.

So I can sympathise with jury members, I really can, but I'm going to bitch about them anyway...

I've seen a lot of juries at work, and I often get the distinct impression that they are not paying attention. At all. Worse, I sometimes overhear what jury members are saying, either to each other or on their mobiles, as they leave the building. I overhear things like: "Well, he must be guilty or he wouldn't be in court," or, on one occasion: "We weren't sure he was guilty, so we only found him guilty on two of the charges." These are people who swore an oath to 'give true verdict, according to the evidence'.

Frankly, I don't trust them to get it right.
I don't just mean that they sometimes make a decision I disagree with - sometimes they make a decision that just doesn't make sense. One which suggests to me that they are not competent to make a ham sandwich, let alone determine guilt or innocence in a major criminal case.

Example, an attempted murder trial I covered, skip to the end if bored:

Defendant's wife had left him and started a relationship with the victim.
Defendant admitted arming himself with a 7-inch serrated dagger, going to the victim's flat early one morning and kicking the door in. Victim told the jury the defendant rushed in and stabbed him six times. Two very deep wounds, and four fairly nasty ones. He was left with two collapsed lungs, a serious injury to his liver, and a cut to the membrane around his heart. By some medical miracle, he lived.

Defendant's version of events was that he had only gone round there to talk to the guy, and brought the knife along as an attention-getter, to make him listen. He said he had lost his temper at the last second, thinking about how this was the guy that was seeing his wife, and kicked the door in.
He said the victim had then come running at him like a madman, and accidentally impaled himself on the dagger. Twice. Yes, that's right - ran onto the knife, pulled himself off it, then blundered onto it again. He said they then had a bit of a struggle, and the victim must have got the other four wounds while that was going on.

A forensic scientist told the jury that the angle of the victim's wounds indicated that none of them were inflicted by him falling or running onto the blade.

Can you guess who the jury believed? Who, after the jury had been out less than five minutes, got unanimously found not guilty of attempted murder? My first thought was that they had been bribed, but I have a feeling they were just very stupid. I think it's fair to say everyone in the courtroom was astounded. In fact, once the jury had cleared off, even the defence barrister admitted it was a bizarre decision.

I'd say it was more than bizarre. I'd borrow a phrase from the House of Lords, criticising another jury decision, and call it 'perverse' and 'an affront to justice'. [Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another]

End of example.

So, good people of NSG, restore my faith in the ancient institution of trial by jury. Tell me about the time you were on a jury and, in spite of the devious defence barrister, you convicted the swine.
Or maybe you realised that the police were out to get the defendant, and the evidence against him was dodgy, so you found him not guilty.
Or, point out to me the noble principles behind the concept.
Go on, I want to be persuaded.

Professional jurists. Problem solved.

Well, Denmark has juries. Three of them: One is the judge, the other two are laymen.

I dunno what the result is.

I do know that the judge has to power to veto a guilty verdict, but that it's rarely used (no power to veto innocent verdicts however).

Jury members are drawn from a cross-section of society, not necessarily people with any legal knowledge, but able to use their common sense and understanding of real life in order to make decisions.
See? Right there! The premise is incorrect; common sense is not THAT common. :p

Seriously, I feel that trial by jury is nice in concept, but not that good in practice. I would prefer a trial by a judge. However, trial by a judge is more prone to corruption, so it should be better if potential judges are screened beforehand and evaluated while sitting.

But I don't really know much on the matter, our court system here is trial by a judge. But from what I have heard...

Going to have to agree with you, Pictish. I'm going to be serving my own jury duty in about a week or so and while I plan on fulfilling the duty to the best of my ability and truly determine the proper course of action, I fear the other eleven will not.

So, how about professional jurists, then? We create standards and tests of some sort, submit those who are trying to get the job to them, and then use them as jurists. I think it'd be a hell of a lot fairer, because that way those who want to be jurists would be jurists and those who don't want to be--usually part of the reason they'll not truly do their duty, I would suspect--don't have to be.

Well in many ways they really are the best people to make these sorts of decisions. After all laws are there for the benefit of society as a whole so who better to make decisions on applying those laws than representatives from society as a whole.

On the other hand you really do want some way of injecting a bit of legal sense into them. Perhaps you want an independent legally trained adviser, who probably wouldn't be present in the courtroom itself, but would sit in on the jury when it's making its decision. So if he spots them making inappropriate comments like, "I reckon he's guilty - he looked really shifty" or if they want to ask him questions he's there on hand to steer them to making a legally correct decision.

Okay, two of you have suggested professional jurists, which is good thinking.

Upsides: They will know what they are doing in court.
They will be less fazed by clever defence lawyers.

Downsides: I can see the civil rights people being dead against it - professionals will be, or will inevitably become, part of the system. Juries are supposed to bring that 'man in the street' perspective into a courtroom full of jaded and cynical lawyers.
Someone who is a full time jury member will be easier to identify and bribe/threaten/unduly influence. Maybe.

Perhaps you want an independent legally trained adviser, who probably wouldn't be present in the courtroom itself, but would sit in on the jury when it's making its decision. So if he spots them making inappropriate comments like, "I reckon he's guilty - he looked really shifty" or if they want to ask him questions he's there on hand to steer them to making a legally correct decision.

Yes, I'm liking this one - another layer of protection. Someone who can't influence the jury by commenting on the evidence, simply because they didn't see the evidence.

At present, if the jury need legal advice, they have to come back into court and hear it from the judge, who consults with the barristers first. Barristers would not like to lose that input. After all, if they really think the judge has given wrong advice, it's grounds for an appeal.

Then we go for that.

Oh, and if we keep the trial by peers, we might want a bit of a stricter screening process at least, as that should help.

My grandmother was telling me about the time she did jury duty.

The first time, there was one man who refused to give into everyone else's opinions. And he held out for weeks. After a while, the Judge went to him and asked if he understood the case. The man said he didn't, but he just enjoyed the food they were giving him.

My second example is much worse. A case was presented, and the man was obviously guilty. But, he was friends with a City Councilman, and that same councilman was in the jury. And so, the councilman used his eloquence to win over the jury, and to convince them that the man was innocent. My grandmother was the only one who held out. Unfortunately, things resorted to typical schoolyard peer pressure, and she gave in.


... Oh legal system. How I love you.

Then we go for that.

Oh, and if we keep the trial by peers, we might want a bit of a stricter screening process at least, as that should help.

Sounds good. At work tomorrow, I shall suggest it to anyone who will listen.

BTW, as part of the media, I'm not allowed to ask about jurors about what was said and done in the jury room. But if, having done your jury service, you decided you wanted to share your experiences on this forum...

Sounds good. At work tomorrow, I shall suggest it to anyone who will listen.

BTW, as part of the media, I'm not allowed to ask about jurors about what was said and done in the jury room. But if, having done your jury service, you decided you wanted to share your experiences on this forum...

If I am legally allowed to, I will. I can't say in advance whether I will be or not though.

I'm all for the Judge Dredd approach. One man is Judge, Jury, AND Executioner.

I have mixed feelings about the jury generally.. well .. not just the jury, but that the jury decision is based off the lawyers ability to convince the jurors to their position.. not totally .. but it weighs a lot.

I'm not convinced that professional jurors would be a good thing, since I feel they would end up being corrupted one way or the other. I'd prefer to take my chances with regular folk being 'picked' .. since this is not their profession and they'd have nothing to win or lose (in most cases) either way. I put myself in the seat of the defendant here.

the problem i have is when they pass laws saying you don't have to have a trial by jury.


it's the one place ordinary citizens can be involved in the law making process.
because no jury member is bond to vote guilty or not guilty, no matter how much evidence there is.

i'm thinking here of say when protesters burnt draft cards during the Vietnam war. some juries said, not guilty.



:upyours::fluffle:

I agree that jurors will often have no legal knowledge and could easily be persuaded by a good speech by one of the lawyers or another jury member, or coerced into agreeing by peer pressure as mentioned above.

A problem with professional jurors, other than what's been mentioned, is the government would need to recruit a lot to get going with them. And could a juror be expected to be 'working' on more than one case at a time? Do judges already preside over multiple cases? I don't know the specifics of the system.

I think better screening processes and some form of training would be good, perhaps a day of rational thinking classes and studying some previous cases.

Okay, two of you have suggested professional jurists, which is good thinking.

Upsides: They will know what they are doing in court.
They will be less fazed by clever defence lawyers.

Downsides: I can see the civil rights people being dead against it - professionals will be, or will inevitably become, part of the system. Juries are supposed to bring that 'man in the street' perspective into a courtroom full of jaded and cynical lawyers.
Someone who is a full time jury member will be easier to identify and bribe/threaten/unduly influence. Maybe.

Simple solution; half the jury is professional, the other half is off the street.

Simple solution; half the jury is professional, the other half is off the street.

Fair, although they should also have a legal system/logically fallacy 101.

I'm all for the Judge Dredd approach. One man is Judge, Jury, AND Executioner.

Clopin. :)

Fair, although they should also have a legal system/logically fallacy 101.

right. by professional, I was thinking of a degree in jurrying, something along the lines of law and forensic/other science requirements.

right. by professional, I was thinking of a degree in jurrying, something along the lines of law and forensic/other science requirements.

Yes, yes, I was talking about the half of the street. I think proffessional jury should be either law or its own course.

to be honest I don't trust the general public to do the right thing in general, let alone with something as clumsy and unmanageable as court

give me some old Fop anytime :p

I see your point. Perhaps they should select random lawyers...

What was it Churchill said? "Democracy was the worst form of government, until you considered the alternatives?" Something like that.
Anyway, I think this quote holds true with trial by jury. There are plenty of flaws, jurists don't understand what's going on, they don't care, or they even willingly lie. I don't know how familiar the Emmett Till case is outside the United States, but that's a good example. Basically, an all white jury in Mississippi in the early Sixties found two white men who had obviously brutally murdered a black teenager not guilty. It's distressing, and seems like a bad idea.
But then there are the alternatives. Several people have suggested professional jurists, and while I can see the advantage of having some of the jury be professional (maybe 4 of the 12), I fear an all-professional jury will be worse. To stay with the Emmett Till example, imagine what would have happened if the jury was professional in a state where racism was not only part of the culture, it was present in the law. I doubt their verdict would have been any different. And how does one become a professional jurist? Are they chosen by the court? That would lead to something similar in China, where the Party rules everything, including who gets to be in the Party. Would the jurists be elected? That may be better, but justice shouldn't have to appeal to what is popular, which is what may end up happening. What if the professional jurists are chosen randomly from the population? That would be even better, and that's pretty much the system we have in place now, minus the professionalism.

I personally do not feel that normal joe schmo's and jane schmo's are fully capable of deciding properly in a court room the fate of the defendant. That should be up to a legal professional or rather a group of professionals (perhaps a few judges instead of one). I include myself in this demographic too. The best jury candidate is one who is least tainted by any sort of stereotypes, bias, etc. That basically leaves kids as the only real majority that can serve and well, I'm sure they'd love it to get out of school, it probably isn't a good idea.

it's the one place ordinary citizens can be involved in the law making process.
because no jury member is bond to vote guilty or not guilty, no matter how much evidence there is.

i'm thinking here of say when protesters burnt draft cards during the Vietnam war. some juries said, not guilty.


Yes, jury equity (I think it's called jury nullification in the US) is important, and allows ordinary people to reject bad laws and politically motivated prosecutions.

And could a juror be expected to be 'working' on more than one case at a time? Do judges already preside over multiple cases? I don't know the specifics of the system.


Short answer:
No, and no.

Long answer:
Juries are called for two weeks, and serve on one trial at a time. If the trial lasts less than two weeks, they may get given another one.
If it lasts longer than two weeks, bad luck. Particularly bad luck if it's a complicated fraud trial, and they are stuck looking at balance sheets every day for the next nine months.

A judge will also preside over one trial at a time but, once the jury have gone out to consider their verdicts, he* and the courtroom are free so another case can be brought in. If the jury reach a verdict at an inconvenient time, the next case gets interrupted.

*It is almost always a he. There are female judges, but I've never come across one.

but able to use their common sense and understanding of real life in order to make decisions.
And this is the problem. Common sense, aside from being generally neither common nor sense, is completely irrelevant when making findings of law or findings of fact, both of which juries are asked to do.

I was once called for jury duty. It went like this:

JUSTICE: What is your occupation?
LLEWDOR: I'm a student.
JUSTICE: What do you study?
LLEWDOR: Philosophy.
JUSTICE: (glances at counsel) You're excused.

It's like they didn't want someone who would think critically.

And this is the problem. Common sense, aside from being generally neither common nor sense, is completely irrelevant when making findings of law or findings of fact, both of which juries are asked to do.


Well... I don't see why it can't be okay for findings of fact - deciding which bit of evidence to believe. Still, I agree with you that common sense is anything but common.

As for findings of law, in the UK they can make findings of law, as mentioned above, but are actively discouraged from doing so. It's the judge's job to direct them.
eg. "If you believe the defendant did X, but did not do Y, and did not intend to do Z, it is your duty to acquit him on count 1, but convict him on count 2."

What about an aptitude test and/or a psychologists report. The psychologist can excuse anyone for not being intelligent enough or not being emotionally stable. Then, as usual, the lawyers get to decide between them who they want to have on the jury.

Well... I don't see why it can't be okay for findings of fact - deciding which bit of evidence to believe. Still, I agree with you that common sense is anything but common.

As for findings of law, in the UK they can make findings of law, as mentioned above, but are actively discouraged from doing so. It's the judge's job to direct them.
eg. "If you believe the defendant did X, but did not do Y, and did not intend to do Z, it is your duty to acquit him on count 1, but convict him on count 2."

The same is true in Canada, though juries will sometimes return with decisions that are logically incompatible with the judge's directions.

In those cases, the judge is supposed to overrule the jury and find as he sees fit, though this happens rarely.

I think the whole trial process is a circus. Two teams of lawyers compete in a battle of wit and rhetorics and the team that puts up the best show wins. Look at a few episodes from any of the law themed TV series and ask yourself if that is the most accurate way to find out the truth.

But if thats how it must be done then random people seem to be the least corruptible. It could be worse, here in Sweden the jurors are elected by local politicians after each election and serve for 4 years until after the next election. I'd rather be judged by random people from the general population then by politicians who failed to get seats in the municipal council but instead where given seats in jury by their friends who did manage to get into the council.

Professional jurists. Problem solved.

Other problems created ... the more you restrict the people in charge of handing down a decision the easier it is for corruption

Now I am not entirely sure that corruption is worse then ignorance as far as damage is concerned in shear quantity but when it is directed corruption it would be a lot easier to organize the movement of a countries legal system

Maybe it is me being paranoid but still

I think the whole trial process is a circus. Two teams of lawyers compete in a battle of wit and rhetorics and the team that puts up the best show wins. Look at a few episodes from any of the law themed TV series and ask yourself if that is the most accurate way to find out the truth.

But if thats how it must be done then random people seem to be the least corruptible. It could be worse, here in Sweden the jurors are elected by local politicians after each election and serve for 4 years until after the next election. I'd rather be judged by random people from the general population then by politicians who failed to get seats in the municipal council but instead where given seats in jury by their friends who did manage to get into the council.

I do not usually take TV as an example of anything but TV ... seems to be a bad move to me to think it closely resembles much

In those cases, the judge is supposed to overrule the jury and find as he sees fit, though this happens rarely.

I've heard that can happen here, but I don't know of any cases where it actually has. I imagine he would need to have a seriously good reason. Perhaps it would apply if he thought the jury had been bribed or threatened.

Juries sometimes make unbelieveably boneheaded decisions. I'd be happy to see a judge call them on it.

I was once called for jury duty. It went like this:

JUSTICE: What is your occupation?
LLEWDOR: I'm a student.
JUSTICE: What do you study?
LLEWDOR: Philosophy.
JUSTICE: (glances at counsel) You're excused.

It's like they didn't want someone who would think critically.

Maybe they wanted someone with a real degree :p

At least they don't use juries for civil cases. Although I'm not sure I'd like just one judge (or three) having total power over criminal cases.

Yes, jury equity (I think it's called jury nullification in the US) is important, and allows ordinary people to reject bad laws and politically motivated prosecutions.


hell yeah!!
jury nullification!!!

remember that next time you get called up for jury duty,
but don't let on that you know about this or they'll pass you up in the selection process for sure.

1) Empirically, research indicates that in a very high percentage of cases juries rule exactly as the judge would rule.

2) Judges fail to pay attention to the case before them all the time. Sometimes they even fall asleep. (The jury may have the advantage here: with twelve of them, it seems reasonable that at least some of them are attentive to any given testimony.)

3) Judges make bizarre, perverse decisions all the time.

In other words, most of the time--for practical purposes--it's a wash.

I'll prefer the jury, however, on one point of principle: the power of jury nullification. It may be the most democratic institution modern democracies have ever seen.

It's better for 100 guilty people to get off on a technicality than for one innocent person to get screwed.

A unanimous majority doesn't stop, but greatly narrows the chances of someone getting unfairly screwed.

What about an aptitude test and/or a psychologists report. The psychologist can excuse anyone for not being intelligent enough or not being emotionally stable. Then, as usual, the lawyers get to decide between them who they want to have on the jury.

Intelligence really doesn't affect a jury. Stupid people are easily influenced. The problem hear lies that the prosecution and defense will both try their hardest to bend the minds of the juries in their directions. So it doesn't matter how dumb they are, they are twisted from both sides.

Juries sometimes make unbelieveably boneheaded decisions. I'd be happy to see a judge call them on it.

If the judge has power to negate their descision why the hell is the jury there?

Everyone wants to get off jury duty. I don't know why. I would love to do that, it sounds like lots of fun. Of course then again, I am unemployed, and have a low level of a social life, so yeah.

A unanimous majority doesn't stop, but greatly narrows the chances of someone getting unfairly screwed.Actually, studies show that there is virtually no difference between the conviction rates of unanimous and non-unanimous juries.

If the judge has power to negate their descision why the hell is the jury there?Judges cannot simply say, "I don't like that decision, it's thrown out." They need to be able to state a pretty damn good reason.

And they can't throw out a "not guilty" verdict.