| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 10:33:18
It seems that there is an application for holding a trial without a jury is to be considered by the Home Office.
Though it has been possible to do so in accordance with British Law since the 'Criminal Justice Act 2003' to be precise I am rather dismayed at the prospect.
On the one hand I must agree with Richard Dawkins quote:
should I be charged with a serious crime here’s how I want to be tried. If I know myself to be guilty, I’ll go with the loose cannon of a jury, the more ignorant, prejudiced and capricious the better. But if I am innocent, and the ideal of multiple independent decision-takers is unavailable, please give me a judge.
here
(Actually it is in interesting piece, that single quote notwithstanding  )
There is no doubt that juries can be capricious. But on the other hand, juries also serve as a necessary bridge between the objective nature of the Law and the dispassionate objectivity of the trained judge and the reality of life. Effectively, keeping the Law grounded in the streets over which it holds sway.
The contention is that:
quote:
because of concerns that jurors assigned to the case – which involves members of an organised criminal network – would be vulnerable to intimidation or bribery.
here
I do not doubt that this is in all likelihood a very real and probably a very justified concern. However I still think that it should be possible to ensure that jury members are protected in all possible ways. Though I daresay that would be costly in financial terms is that really sufficient reason for dispensing with a jury for a criminal trial? Would it not set a precedence? And would we be given warning that this precedence is going to turn around and bite our noses. Or will the first time we become aware of it be when the blood is pouring down?
|
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 08:23:03
I believe that juries are selected in a very similar way here in England. Electoral Roll and then selection by Defence and Prosecution.
There are certainly drawbacks to the Jury system. Both in terms of who might actually constitute the Jury and as you aptly point out, in terms of impact to the juror. Not all Juries are filled with thoughtful and 'reality bound' individuals. Does anyone remember that great movie with a young(ish)Henry Fonda and several other excellent actors '12 Angry Men'(1956/57 I think)?
And yes, there are certainly times when a Jury has come out with the most unbelievable verdicts. Some real miscarriages of justice have come about because of Juries that have either not bothered to evaluate the evidence or have seemingly been incapable of it.
There may be a case there for rethinking how Juries are 'instructed' and supported. Though not for how Juries are selected.
But it is one of the very few times we, as members of a form of Democratic Society, can actually take part in a very important part of what constitutes Democracy. The right to trial by Jury was a hard fought and far from easily won battle. Like the right to vote it is not something we should discard so readily. |
| camelot |
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 07:33:15
The problem with juries here in the US is that one cannot guarantee that a jury will be made up of Miriams, Tombstones, Fluffies, BiH’s, Nazzes, or any of the posters here that I think might take the time to evaluate the evidence....
I do not know how Juries are selected in the UK, but here in the USA it is based on voter registration. (Yet another way to persuade people not to vote.) The one time I was “summoned”; I found out that the jury I was to join (Grand Jury) might take up to nine months of my time before it was completed. Not a viable option for your average person with a family, job, mortgage, and general life responsibilities. So I pleaded my case and was dismissed... But who then was left to take my place?? Someone who would weigh the facts of the case and provide a reasoned judgment?? Lord, I hope so! |
|
|
