Marvin the Martian : And in all of our societies those who have both a good set of policy ideas and the intelligence to implement them are vastly outnumbered by the stupid, the lazy, the ignorant..........
I don't know about the rest of you, shipmates, but the last thing I want to be is a legislator or government minister, and find the idea of selecting leaders by random sampling crazy.
I don't think it automatically follows that tha advantage of a jury extends to politics.
I think "politics" there is used in the wide sense - meaning the whole area of government and collective decision-making. (Which as Kwesi said, cannot be either good or bad in principle).
Whereas in the narrow sense, one could perhaps say that a jury is less political than a parliament ? Less prone to the development of self-serving factions ?
Why would a citizens' jury not be an advantageous way of addressing some of the decisions facing governments ?
Presumably because the jury process implies that the state doesn't act against anybody unless the jury can achieve a consensus ? (Whether the rules require unanimity or only near-unanimity). Whereas you want the state to act on issues where there are continuing irreconcilable value-conflicts so that consensus is unlikely ?
Politics means having to negotiate with other people who don't share your interests. For people who just want to live their lives as isolated monads, unconcerned with anyone else, that's uncomfortable.
Also, we set up political institutions to deal with unpleasant things that we don't want to deal with on our own. So, as a matter of course, politics means dealing with things you don't want to deal with.
And this is how it is under good conditions.
I think politics is a fascinating topic, a moral obligation, and a neat process to watch at close range, but I get why it annoys people.
Whereas you want the state to act on issues where there are continuing irreconcilable value-conflicts so that consensus is unlikely ?
Insisting on consensus in politics is a recipe for utter paralysis. So, yes. I've no interest in consensus with a fascist, and I'm not going to let one (or a tiny number) block necessary legislation the majority want. The floor is open to both of us to state our cases - if I get more votes than they do, then the proposition is carried.
Police, politics and polite ultimately derive from Greek Polis, City.
This is incorrect. "Police" and "politics" derive from the Greek polis (πόλις), meaning city, whereas "politeness" derives from the Latin politus, meaning smooth, burnished, or polished. Despite the phonetic similarities the etymologies are unrelated.
Police, politics and polite ultimately derive from Greek Polis, City.
This is incorrect. "Police" and "politics" derive from the Greek polis (πόλις), meaning city, whereas "politeness" derives from the Latin politus, meaning smooth, burnished, or polished. Despite the phonetic similarities the etymologies are unrelated.
I blame the late, great pterry for the confusion - on the Disc both derive from the Latatian polis.
Police, politics and polite ultimately derive from Greek Polis, City.
This is incorrect. "Police" and "politics" derive from the Greek polis (πόλις), meaning city, whereas "politeness" derives from the Latin politus, meaning smooth, burnished, or polished. Despite the phonetic similarities the etymologies are unrelated.
You are correct as I discovered shortly afterwards.
Yet most people agree that justice is best served by randomly selecting a small number of people to decide whether a person is innocent or guilty. So if a random jury is the best and fairest system for deciding on an individual's fate, why isn't it also the best means of deciding wider issues? Especially as with a larger number of people, statistically you are likely to end up with a reasonably representative sample of the population.
On a jury you have a majority who don't really want to be there.
We need intelligent professional jurors who can understand the complexities especially in fraud cases.
Yet most people agree that justice is best served by randomly selecting a small number of people to decide whether a person is innocent or guilty. So if a random jury is the best and fairest system for deciding on an individual's fate, why isn't it also the best means of deciding wider issues? Especially as with a larger number of people, statistically you are likely to end up with a reasonably representative sample of the population.
On a jury you have a majority who don't really want to be there.
We need intelligent professional jurors who can understand the complexities especially in fraud cases.
‘Not stupid’ certainly helps. When you say ‘professional’ though, do you mean people who are recruited and in permanent employment as jurors? Or do you mean drawn from ‘professions’?
Very many jury trials are not actually that complicated in terms of issues and evidence.
The argument is ongoing about complex fraud trials, including possibly doing away with juries altogether in such cases.
I've served on a jury and I was impressed at how seriously its members took the task, whatever their background, class, level of education or apparent intelligence.
Fwiw I think that the primary chamber (commons) should consist of democratically elected representatives (though I would take issue with the FPTP system in the UK as being the best way of doing this); but I would be prepared to argue that a random, jury-type second chamber scrutinising legislation might do a better job than the House of Lords. Who are not only unelected but are there by birth, position or are selected by the government.
Yet most people agree that justice is best served by randomly selecting a small number of people to decide whether a person is innocent or guilty. So if a random jury is the best and fairest system for deciding on an individual's fate, why isn't it also the best means of deciding wider issues? Especially as with a larger number of people, statistically you are likely to end up with a reasonably representative sample of the population.
On a jury you have a majority who don't really want to be there.
We need intelligent professional jurors who can understand the complexities especially in fraud cases.
‘Not stupid’ certainly helps. When you say ‘professional’ though, do you mean people who are recruited and in permanent employment as jurors? Or do you mean drawn from ‘professions’?
Very many jury trials are not actually that complicated in terms of issues and evidence.
The argument is ongoing about complex fraud trials, including possibly doing away with juries altogether in such cases.
I mean people of good character who are recruited and in permanent employment as jurors. Similar to Magistrates
I’d offer for that. Mind you, it’d require a massive investment in the legal system if you were to fund 12 additional paid people for every jury trial.
In principal such people would be no different from judges or magistrates (juries are, of course, the judges of fact) with all the questions that would be asked about whether they were drawn from too narrow a pool, and whether they were really in touch with ordinary people’s daily lives.
Do you think that there will one day be AI juries and judges? Maybe not today... maybe not tomorrow... but maybe within our lifetimes...
Hard to say. The problem with current narrow AI* technology is that we seem to be able to get a computer to do anything a human does through thinking, but have a hard time getting it to do anything a human being does without thinking. So an AI jury (the Jurytron 9000?) could probably reach logical conclusions based on clearly presented evidence, but might have trouble deciding which witness' testimony was more credible.
* "Artificial narrow intelligence" is a type of computer intelligence that is as good as (or better than) a human intelligence at performing one narrow type of task, like playing chess or doing math. It's the only type of AI we've figured out to date.
Do you think that there will one day be AI juries and judges? Maybe not today... maybe not tomorrow... but maybe within our lifetimes...
No.
Clearly there's plenty of science fiction that features computer juries, but I think the lessons learned from AI that's been trained on racially biased data sets producing horrifically racist outputs mean that there's no chance of AI juries in the foreseeable future.
I’d offer for that. Mind you, it’d require a massive investment in the legal system if you were to fund 12 additional paid people for every jury trial.
In principal such people would be no different from judges or magistrates (juries are, of course, the judges of fact) with all the questions that would be asked about whether they were drawn from too narrow a pool, and whether they were really in touch with ordinary people’s daily lives.
Cheaper than Judges but more expensive than Magistrates. It would probably result in more guilty pleas.
Slight problem with 'professional juries'. You're not allowed them, and probably never will.
The reason we have juries chosen by lot - and the reason why lawyers, police officers, and ancillary staff are barred from serving - is so that the jurors don't judge on the process, but on the facts. If I know the reason why a particular piece of evidence has to be disregarded, or simply that the suspect has been in five similar trials, then my objectivity goes out the window.
Even I don't know if I'm allowed to serve on a jury, since Mrs Tor's colleagues will be involved in the trial.
I’d offer for that. Mind you, it’d require a massive investment in the legal system if you were to fund 12 additional paid people for every jury trial.
In principal such people would be no different from judges or magistrates (juries are, of course, the judges of fact) with all the questions that would be asked about whether they were drawn from too narrow a pool, and whether they were really in touch with ordinary people’s daily lives.
Cheaper than Judges but more expensive than Magistrates. It would probably result in more guilty pleas.
You didn’t say you were going to do away with judges. Even if you did, it’s hard to imagine that twelve professional people paid an appropriate professional remuneration would be cheaper than one professional and twelve people who receive only expenses and in some cases an allowance for loss of income.
the reason why lawyers, police officers, and ancillary staff are barred from serving.
AFAIK most of these are no longer disqualifications, and if any remain they are not automatic.
The list is more comprehensive than I think either of us thought. But it does cover the three examples I gave above if they were employed as such in the last 10 years.
That list doesn’t apply in the US - at least, not in Massachusetts, where there are no occupational restrictions. Every time I go in for jury duty, I hear an explicit reassurance that even judges have to serve.
Slight problem with 'professional juries'. You're not allowed them,
correct
and probably never will.
or probably will
The reason we have juries chosen by lot - and the reason why lawyers, police officers, and ancillary staff are barred from serving - is so that the jurors don't judge on the process, but on the facts. If I know the reason why a particular piece of evidence has to be disregarded, or simply that the suspect has been in five similar trials, then my objectivity goes out the window.
You get career criminals appearing before the same magistrates on a regular basis
I’d offer for that. Mind you, it’d require a massive investment in the legal system if you were to fund 12 additional paid people for every jury trial.
In principal such people would be no different from judges or magistrates (juries are, of course, the judges of fact) with all the questions that would be asked about whether they were drawn from too narrow a pool, and whether they were really in touch with ordinary people’s daily lives.
Cheaper than Judges but more expensive than Magistrates. It would probably result in more guilty pleas.
You didn’t say you were going to do away with judges. Even if you did, it’s hard to imagine that twelve professional people paid an appropriate professional remuneration would be cheaper than one professional and twelve people who receive only expenses and in some cases an allowance for loss of income.
I only refered to the jury. Of course we would have judges. The advantage of a professional jury is that they would be more competent.
More competent at what, exactly? Deciding whether a witness is reliable or not? I really don’t think there’s that much of a juror’s duty that would be amenable to professionalization.
the reason why lawyers, police officers, and ancillary staff are barred from serving.
AFAIK most of these are no longer disqualifications, and if any remain they are not automatic.
The list is more comprehensive than I think either of us thought. But it does cover the three examples I gave above if they were employed as such in the last 10 years.
I should have made it clear I was talking about England and Wales. Northern Ireland and Scotland both have different rules. In Scotland I’m ineligible on one count and excusable as of right on another. In Northern Ireland I’m excusable as of right on the same basis as in Scotland. In England and Wales neither applies.
More competent at what, exactly? Deciding whether a witness is reliable or not? I really don’t think there’s that much of a juror’s duty that would be amenable to professionalization.
Convicting the guilty and aquitting the innocent would be good.
But how would being a paid professional have, in itself, that admittedly desirable result?
(BTW, I think it used to be the case that those suffering from madness, or being clergymen of the Church of England, were exempt from jury service. The two states are not necessarily incompatible.)
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
A shift to an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system is something to consider, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it's more effective.
I also don't think considering previous convictions rather than the evidence in an individual case is likely to lead to anything other than an increase in miscarriages of justice.
Why would it have been *easier* for your neighbour if she had known of the defendant's previous convictions?
Those convictions might (a) have had no bearing whatsoever on the charge concerned, and/or might (b) have prejudiced the jury against the defendant - in which case, so much for a fair trial.
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
What information do you expect paid professionals to be given that isn’t given to juries now, and why?
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
The prosecution are only allowed to apply to the judge to lay a defendant's previous convictions before the court if the defendant, or their lawyer, states that the the defendant's character is spotless. The judge then decides if this is reasonable.
There are obvious reasons for not mentioning the existence of previous convictions - the chief of which is to stop the police from simply arresting the 'usual suspects' and putting them in front of a court, rather than doing the leg work. The second is to prevent influencing a jury, who are there to judge the case on the facts, not that the defendant is a bad 'un.
Honestly, we tried it the other way and we had so many miscarriages of justice. This way is substantially better.
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
A shift to an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system is something to consider, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it's more effective.
I also don't think considering previous convictions rather than the evidence in an individual case is likely to lead to anything other than an increase in miscarriages of justice.
I never advoctaed for the release of previous convictions. My story was to highlight the naivety of the avaereage jury member
Why would it have been *easier* for your neighbour if she had known of the defendant's previous convictions?
Those convictions might (a) have had no bearing whatsoever on the charge concerned, and/or might (b) have prejudiced the jury against the defendant - in which case, so much for a fair trial.
You miss the point. The jury were not told but should have realised the truth of the matter
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
What information do you expect paid professionals to be given that isn’t given to juries now, and why?
No extra information just better decisons having not been swayed by the ability of the barristers
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
The prosecution are only allowed to apply to the judge to lay a defendant's previous convictions before the court if the defendant, or their lawyer, states that the the defendant's character is spotless. The judge then decides if this is reasonable.
There are obvious reasons for not mentioning the existence of previous convictions - the chief of which is to stop the police from simply arresting the 'usual suspects' and putting them in front of a court, rather than doing the leg work. The second is to prevent influencing a jury, who are there to judge the case on the facts, not that the defendant is a bad 'un.
Honestly, we tried it the other way and we had so many miscarriages of justice. This way is substantially better.
Police Officers do not gain any satisfaction from the conviction of people who they know to be innocent.
The prosecution are allowed to introduce the convictions of defendants if they attack the character of prosecution witnesses,
Politics means having to negotiate with other people who don't share your interests.
Well, no.
If decisions were made by a citizens' jury who heard evidence and then had to reach a consensus on what to do, that would involve negotiating. Which means a compromise - you get some of what you want, they get some of what they want.
Politics is getting the power to not have to negotiate. By making promises you can't keep, being selective with the truth, appealing to tribal loyalties, etc etc.
Negotiation is treating those who disagree with you as people with whom you reach an understanding. Politics is drumming up a bigger gang so as to take what you want and those who disagree can go screw themselves.
Doc Tor said it:
I've no interest in consensus with a fascist... ...if I get more votes than they do, then the proposition is carried.
Politics means having to negotiate with other people who don't share your interests.
Well, no.
If decisions were made by a citizens' jury who heard evidence and then had to reach a consensus on what to do, that would involve negotiating. Which means a compromise - you get some of what you want, they get some of what they want.
Politics is getting the power to not have to negotiate. By making promises you can't keep, being selective with the truth, appealing to tribal loyalties, etc etc.
Negotiation is treating those who disagree with you as people with whom you reach an understanding. Politics is drumming up a bigger gang so as to take what you want and those who disagree can go screw themselves.
Doc Tor said it:
I've no interest in consensus with a fascist... ...if I get more votes than they do, then the proposition is carried.
Bzzt.
I'm happy to negotiate with people who don't necessarily share my interests, but I'm not happy to negotiate with people whose interests include sending me to a gas chamber. This isn't the Weimar Republic, and I'm not Bismark.
How was the jury to realise the truth of the matter (by which you presumably mean the previous convictions)?
I think Telford's case is that if the defence doesn't brag about their client's upstanding past, it's because the client doesn't have one.
Correct.
But what earthly use is a past record in deciding whether the accused (and remember, it is only accused) has committed the particular crime now before the court?
I refer you to my last post. A trial should be a search for the truth, not a battle involving the skill of barristers some of whom might be very expensive.
A trial is not a search for the truth ("What is truth?") but rather whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime charged (or a lesser but similar charge if that be open in your particular jurisdiction).
I'd suggest that you carefully read and inwardly digest what Doc Tor's been saying.
We have detectives, grand juries, prosecutors and judges to handle the "search for the truth" bits. Jurors alone can weigh the results of said investigations with an open mind. To professionalize them is to leave nobody in a position to look at the case without bias--or at least with as little as possible. Professionals develop leanings, rules of thumb, shortcuts--and such things can blind them to aspects of the unique case actually before them at the moment.
We have detectives, grand juries, prosecutors and judges to handle the "search for the truth" bits. Jurors alone can weigh the results of said investigations with an open mind. To professionalize them is to leave nobody in a position to look at the case without bias--or at least with as little as possible. Professionals develop leanings, rules of thumb, shortcuts--and such things can blind them to aspects of the unique case actually before them at the moment.
Thank you, well said (but some of us leave out the grand jury, I think that's almost completely limited to the US by now. The replacement is a salaried magistrate).
Police Officers do not gain any satisfaction from the conviction of people who they know to be innocent.
This is demonstrably false, simply by the fact that we have legislation in place to try and prevent it from happening. Added to which, the 'usual suspects' scenario doesn't mean the defendant is innocent - it means they're guilty of other, similar crimes, so it doesn't matter if they did this particular one or not: they're a criminal, and deserve to be locked up.
Police Officers do not gain any satisfaction from the conviction of people who they know to be innocent.
This is demonstrably false, simply by the fact that we have legislation in place to try and prevent it from happening. Added to which, the 'usual suspects' scenario doesn't mean the defendant is innocent - it means they're guilty of other, similar crimes, so it doesn't matter if they did this particular one or not: they're a criminal, and deserve to be locked up.
Your first statement is a slur on all honest hard working Police officers
Police Officers do not gain any satisfaction from the conviction of people who they know to be innocent.
This isn't the first time that you've stated something as a fact on the grounds that it ought to be a fact.
I suppose the vast majority of police officers don't get satisfaction from the conviction of people whom they know to be innocent of anything. (There are no doubt a few jobsworths, as in every profession, who just care that they have resolved the case without caring whether they've resolved it correctly.)
But there's a lot of room between that and, the police only get satisfaction from the conviction of people whom they know for certain to be guilty of the charge in question.
Police Officers do not gain any satisfaction from the conviction of people who they know to be innocent.
This is demonstrably false, simply by the fact that we have legislation in place to try and prevent it from happening. Added to which, the 'usual suspects' scenario doesn't mean the defendant is innocent - it means they're guilty of other, similar crimes, so it doesn't matter if they did this particular one or not: they're a criminal, and deserve to be locked up.
Your first statement is a slur on all honest hard working Police officers
No, you've missed the point. No doubt many police officers are indeed *honest and hard working*, but there are some who probably aren't as good as they might be - hence the legislation mentioned by @Doc Tor.
There’s a lot of work that’s been done on causes if wrongful convictions - one of the big issues can be tunnel vision, where police and prosecutors set their sights on a likely candidate but it turns out that said likely candidate didn’t do it.
Comments
I don't know about the rest of you, shipmates, but the last thing I want to be is a legislator or government minister, and find the idea of selecting leaders by random sampling crazy.
That's right.
I'd like to dig deeper into LC's comment
I think "politics" there is used in the wide sense - meaning the whole area of government and collective decision-making. (Which as Kwesi said, cannot be either good or bad in principle).
Whereas in the narrow sense, one could perhaps say that a jury is less political than a parliament ? Less prone to the development of self-serving factions ?
Why would a citizens' jury not be an advantageous way of addressing some of the decisions facing governments ?
Presumably because the jury process implies that the state doesn't act against anybody unless the jury can achieve a consensus ? (Whether the rules require unanimity or only near-unanimity). Whereas you want the state to act on issues where there are continuing irreconcilable value-conflicts so that consensus is unlikely ?
Also, we set up political institutions to deal with unpleasant things that we don't want to deal with on our own. So, as a matter of course, politics means dealing with things you don't want to deal with.
And this is how it is under good conditions.
I think politics is a fascinating topic, a moral obligation, and a neat process to watch at close range, but I get why it annoys people.
Insisting on consensus in politics is a recipe for utter paralysis. So, yes. I've no interest in consensus with a fascist, and I'm not going to let one (or a tiny number) block necessary legislation the majority want. The floor is open to both of us to state our cases - if I get more votes than they do, then the proposition is carried.
This is incorrect. "Police" and "politics" derive from the Greek polis (πόλις), meaning city, whereas "politeness" derives from the Latin politus, meaning smooth, burnished, or polished. Despite the phonetic similarities the etymologies are unrelated.
I blame the late, great pterry for the confusion - on the Disc both derive from the Latatian polis.
You are correct as I discovered shortly afterwards.
On a jury you have a majority who don't really want to be there.
We need intelligent professional jurors who can understand the complexities especially in fraud cases.
Very many jury trials are not actually that complicated in terms of issues and evidence.
The argument is ongoing about complex fraud trials, including possibly doing away with juries altogether in such cases.
Fwiw I think that the primary chamber (commons) should consist of democratically elected representatives (though I would take issue with the FPTP system in the UK as being the best way of doing this); but I would be prepared to argue that a random, jury-type second chamber scrutinising legislation might do a better job than the House of Lords. Who are not only unelected but are there by birth, position or are selected by the government.
I mean people of good character who are recruited and in permanent employment as jurors. Similar to Magistrates
In principal such people would be no different from judges or magistrates (juries are, of course, the judges of fact) with all the questions that would be asked about whether they were drawn from too narrow a pool, and whether they were really in touch with ordinary people’s daily lives.
Hard to say. The problem with current narrow AI* technology is that we seem to be able to get a computer to do anything a human does through thinking, but have a hard time getting it to do anything a human being does without thinking. So an AI jury (the Jurytron 9000?) could probably reach logical conclusions based on clearly presented evidence, but might have trouble deciding which witness' testimony was more credible.
* "Artificial narrow intelligence" is a type of computer intelligence that is as good as (or better than) a human intelligence at performing one narrow type of task, like playing chess or doing math. It's the only type of AI we've figured out to date.
No.
Clearly there's plenty of science fiction that features computer juries, but I think the lessons learned from AI that's been trained on racially biased data sets producing horrifically racist outputs mean that there's no chance of AI juries in the foreseeable future.
Cheaper than Judges but more expensive than Magistrates. It would probably result in more guilty pleas.
The reason we have juries chosen by lot - and the reason why lawyers, police officers, and ancillary staff are barred from serving - is so that the jurors don't judge on the process, but on the facts. If I know the reason why a particular piece of evidence has to be disregarded, or simply that the suspect has been in five similar trials, then my objectivity goes out the window.
Even I don't know if I'm allowed to serve on a jury, since Mrs Tor's colleagues will be involved in the trial.
AFAIK most of these are no longer disqualifications, and if any remain they are not automatic.
The list is more comprehensive than I think either of us thought. But it does cover the three examples I gave above if they were employed as such in the last 10 years.
I only refered to the jury. Of course we would have judges. The advantage of a professional jury is that they would be more competent.
I should have made it clear I was talking about England and Wales. Northern Ireland and Scotland both have different rules. In Scotland I’m ineligible on one count and excusable as of right on another. In Northern Ireland I’m excusable as of right on the same basis as in Scotland. In England and Wales neither applies.
Convicting the guilty and aquitting the innocent would be good.
(BTW, I think it used to be the case that those suffering from madness, or being clergymen of the Church of England, were exempt from jury service. The two states are not necessarily incompatible.)
Some years ago a neighbour of mine was on a jury and although he accused was convicted she said that it might have been easier for them if they had known of his previous convictions. I asked, " Did his barrister say that he had a clean record with no convictions ?"
"No" she replied. I said, " If you were the accused wouldn't you like the jury to know you had a clean record?" It was a lightbulb moment
A shift to an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system is something to consider, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it's more effective.
I also don't think considering previous convictions rather than the evidence in an individual case is likely to lead to anything other than an increase in miscarriages of justice.
Those convictions might (a) have had no bearing whatsoever on the charge concerned, and/or might (b) have prejudiced the jury against the defendant - in which case, so much for a fair trial.
The prosecution are only allowed to apply to the judge to lay a defendant's previous convictions before the court if the defendant, or their lawyer, states that the the defendant's character is spotless. The judge then decides if this is reasonable.
There are obvious reasons for not mentioning the existence of previous convictions - the chief of which is to stop the police from simply arresting the 'usual suspects' and putting them in front of a court, rather than doing the leg work. The second is to prevent influencing a jury, who are there to judge the case on the facts, not that the defendant is a bad 'un.
Honestly, we tried it the other way and we had so many miscarriages of justice. This way is substantially better.
I never advoctaed for the release of previous convictions. My story was to highlight the naivety of the avaereage jury member
You miss the point. The jury were not told but should have realised the truth of the matter
No extra information just better decisons having not been swayed by the ability of the barristers
Police Officers do not gain any satisfaction from the conviction of people who they know to be innocent.
The prosecution are allowed to introduce the convictions of defendants if they attack the character of prosecution witnesses,
You miss the point. The jury were not told but should have realised the truth of the matter
How was the jury to realise the truth of the matter (by which you presumably mean the previous convictions)?
I think Telford's case is that if the defence doesn't brag about their client's upstanding past, it's because the client doesn't have one.
Obviously, I did indeed miss the point completely...
Correct.
Well, no.
If decisions were made by a citizens' jury who heard evidence and then had to reach a consensus on what to do, that would involve negotiating. Which means a compromise - you get some of what you want, they get some of what they want.
Politics is getting the power to not have to negotiate. By making promises you can't keep, being selective with the truth, appealing to tribal loyalties, etc etc.
Negotiation is treating those who disagree with you as people with whom you reach an understanding. Politics is drumming up a bigger gang so as to take what you want and those who disagree can go screw themselves.
Doc Tor said it:
Bzzt.
I'm happy to negotiate with people who don't necessarily share my interests, but I'm not happy to negotiate with people whose interests include sending me to a gas chamber. This isn't the Weimar Republic, and I'm not Bismark.
But what earthly use is a past record in deciding whether the accused (and remember, it is only accused) has committed the particular crime now before the court?
A trial is not a search for the truth ("What is truth?") but rather whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime charged (or a lesser but similar charge if that be open in your particular jurisdiction).
I'd suggest that you carefully read and inwardly digest what Doc Tor's been saying.
Thank you, well said (but some of us leave out the grand jury, I think that's almost completely limited to the US by now. The replacement is a salaried magistrate).
This is demonstrably false, simply by the fact that we have legislation in place to try and prevent it from happening. Added to which, the 'usual suspects' scenario doesn't mean the defendant is innocent - it means they're guilty of other, similar crimes, so it doesn't matter if they did this particular one or not: they're a criminal, and deserve to be locked up.
Certain posters seem to have no idea at all how the criminal justice system in England actually works...
Your first statement is a slur on all honest hard working Police officers
I suppose the vast majority of police officers don't get satisfaction from the conviction of people whom they know to be innocent of anything. (There are no doubt a few jobsworths, as in every profession, who just care that they have resolved the case without caring whether they've resolved it correctly.)
But there's a lot of room between that and, the police only get satisfaction from the conviction of people whom they know for certain to be guilty of the charge in question.
No, you've missed the point. No doubt many police officers are indeed *honest and hard working*, but there are some who probably aren't as good as they might be - hence the legislation mentioned by @Doc Tor.