Hopefully not OT.
For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview notes:
In this legal experiment, actors recreate a real-life murder trial word-for-word from the original transcripts in front of two juries made
up or ordinary people. The juries are unaware of each other. The case is
of a husband who killed his wife with a hammer but denies murder (names
and dates have been changed).
The deliberations of each jury is followed, including comments made
during their tea-breaks.
On 26/02/2024 08:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
Hopefully not OT.
For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an
interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview
notes:
In this legal experiment, actors recreate a real-life murder trial
word-for-word from the original transcripts in front of two juries made
up or ordinary people. The juries are unaware of each other. The case is
of a husband who killed his wife with a hammer but denies murder (names
and dates have been changed).
The deliberations of each jury is followed, including comments made
during their tea-breaks.
I wasn't intending to watch it but I'll record it and someone can
comment on whether it seems to be a useful insight into jury
deliberations or merely a tabloid-style gimmick.
On 26/02/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
On 26/02/2024 08:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
Hopefully not OT.
For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an
interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview
notes:
In this legal experiment, actors recreate a real-life murder trial
word-for-word from the original transcripts in front of two juries made
up or ordinary people. The juries are unaware of each other. The case is >>> of a husband who killed his wife with a hammer but denies murder (names
and dates have been changed).
The deliberations of each jury is followed, including comments made
during their tea-breaks.
I wasn't intending to watch it but I'll record it and someone can
comment on whether it seems to be a useful insight into jury
deliberations or merely a tabloid-style gimmick.
Many on this group claim that jury verdicts should be respected. That
they give some added value establishing the facts of a case. We should
not question their validity, because we have not heard all the evidence.
I find this argument irritating. I see no reason to believe jurors,
laymen, with no experience, are good at weighing evidence.
On 26/02/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
I wasn't intending to watch it but I'll record it and someone can
comment on whether it seems to be a useful insight into jury
deliberations or merely a tabloid-style gimmick.
Many on this group claim that jury verdicts should be respected. That
they give some added value establishing the facts of a case. We should
not question their validity, because we have not heard all the evidence.
I find this argument irritating. I see no reason to believe jurors,
laymen, with no experience, are good at weighing evidence.
I rarely see an attempt to test jury reliability. One test that can be
done is to test jury consistency. It will not prove that juries reliably
give the right verdict, but it could prove they do not, a falsification.
That appears to be the test being done here.
I do respect the jury system, but not because I think it's good at
deciding on the truth of the evidence. I think that argument is legal pantomime. Rather, I think the value of jury is in accepting the
application of the law to the common man. Is the law fair, will the
common man enforce it.
Many on this group claim that jury verdicts should be respected. That
they give some added value establishing the facts of a case. We should
not question their validity, because we have not heard all the evidence.
I find this argument irritating. I see no reason to believe jurors,
laymen, with no experience, are good at weighing evidence.
I rarely see an attempt to test jury reliability. One test that can be
done is to test jury consistency. It will not prove that juries reliably
give the right verdict, but it could prove they do not, a falsification.
That appears to be the test being done here.
I think you have entirely missed the point of that argument then.
There is plenty of reason to believe that jurors - laymen, with no
experience but who have however seen all the evidence and heard all the
legal argument - are likely to come to a more meaningful decision than
the inhabitants of this group - laymen, with no experience and who have
seen very little of the evidence and heard very little of the argument.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
Many on this group claim that jury verdicts should be respected. That
they give some added value establishing the facts of a case. We should
not question their validity, because we have not heard all the evidence.
I find this argument irritating. I see no reason to believe jurors,
laymen, with no experience, are good at weighing evidence.
That is a separate question - they are weighing the full evidence in front
of them, as opposed to our opinions on the limited subset of evidence which appears in the media. We may (or may not) weigh that better, but we may not get to see other evidence which refutes that which we are weighing.
I rarely see an attempt to test jury reliability. One test that can be
done is to test jury consistency. It will not prove that juries reliably
give the right verdict, but it could prove they do not, a falsification.
That appears to be the test being done here.
I'm not sure this is really a good test of jury reliability, because of the made-for-TV nature.
Another way to do it would be to take regular members
of the public selected for jury service, and play them a recording of proceedings in court (maybe with some cover story as to why they aren't
there in person). Then have them deliberate as normal. What you don't tell them (or the people running the experiment, pretending to be the court clerk etc) is there are N other juries watching the same recording and
deliberating in parallel. Then gather statistics of how many juries vote to convict.
On 26/02/2024 12:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think you have entirely missed the point of that argument then.
There is plenty of reason to believe that jurors - laymen, with no
experience but who have however seen all the evidence and heard all the
legal argument - are likely to come to a more meaningful decision than
the inhabitants of this group - laymen, with no experience and who have
seen very little of the evidence and heard very little of the argument.
You say there is plenty of reason, and yet you do not give any reason. Perhaps you think there are some obvious truths in your statements, but
I don't see them.
On 26/02/2024 12:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think you have entirely missed the point of that argument then.
There is plenty of reason to believe that jurors - laymen, with no
experience but who have however seen all the evidence and heard all the
legal argument - are likely to come to a more meaningful decision than
the inhabitants of this group - laymen, with no experience and who have
seen very little of the evidence and heard very little of the argument.
You say there is plenty of reason, and yet you do not give any reason. Perhaps you think there are some obvious truths in your statements, but
I don't see them.
As I said jury verdict consistency is testable, falsifiable. The fact
that this is never tested suggests that senior people in the legal
system don't really care if juries are reliable.
On 2024-02-26, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 26/02/2024 12:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think you have entirely missed the point of that argument then.
There is plenty of reason to believe that jurors - laymen, with no
experience but who have however seen all the evidence and heard all the
legal argument - are likely to come to a more meaningful decision than
the inhabitants of this group - laymen, with no experience and who have
seen very little of the evidence and heard very little of the argument.
You say there is plenty of reason, and yet you do not give any reason.
Perhaps you think there are some obvious truths in your statements, but
I don't see them.
You must be trying very hard indeed not to see, if it isn't obvious
to you that seeing more of the evidence and hearing more of the legal argument is better than seeing less of the evidence and hearing less
of the legal argument.
On 26/02/2024 15:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-26, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 26/02/2024 12:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think you have entirely missed the point of that argument then.You say there is plenty of reason, and yet you do not give any reason.
There is plenty of reason to believe that jurors - laymen, with no
experience but who have however seen all the evidence and heard all the >>>> legal argument - are likely to come to a more meaningful decision than >>>> the inhabitants of this group - laymen, with no experience and who have >>>> seen very little of the evidence and heard very little of the argument. >>>
Perhaps you think there are some obvious truths in your statements, but
I don't see them.
You must be trying very hard indeed not to see, if it isn't obvious
to you that seeing more of the evidence and hearing more of the legal
argument is better than seeing less of the evidence and hearing less
of the legal argument.
That is a very surprising comment.
On 26/02/2024 12:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
I wasn't intending to watch it but I'll record it and someone can
comment on whether it seems to be a useful insight into jury
deliberations or merely a tabloid-style gimmick.
Many on this group claim that jury verdicts should be respected. That
they give some added value establishing the facts of a case. We should
not question their validity, because we have not heard all the evidence.
I find this argument irritating. I see no reason to believe jurors,
laymen, with no experience, are good at weighing evidence.
You probably have no evidence either to suggest they aren't, especially
in a group of 12 that is required to consider it all and come to a
unanimous conclusion about which they are all 'sure'. Which they do surprisingly often.
I rarely see an attempt to test jury reliability. One test that can be
done is to test jury consistency. It will not prove that juries reliably
give the right verdict, but it could prove they do not, a falsification.
That appears to be the test being done here.
On a tiny scale that will prove nothing statistically.
That's the nuclear option of jury nullification that actually arises
only very rarely. The vast majority of times the rectitude of the law doesn't come into it.
On 26 Feb 2024 at 13:05:17 GMT, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2024 12:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
I wasn't intending to watch it but I'll record it and someone can
comment on whether it seems to be a useful insight into jury
deliberations or merely a tabloid-style gimmick.
Many on this group claim that jury verdicts should be respected. That
they give some added value establishing the facts of a case. We should
not question their validity, because we have not heard all the evidence. >>> I find this argument irritating. I see no reason to believe jurors,
laymen, with no experience, are good at weighing evidence.
You probably have no evidence either to suggest they aren't, especially
in a group of 12 that is required to consider it all and come to a
unanimous conclusion about which they are all 'sure'. Which they do
surprisingly often.
But it's who that group of 12 is.
On the Today programme earlier this was
(IIRC!) explained thus: while the modern jury system started in C13 England, it has not significantly evolved. Most other countries adopted the jury system, but adapted it to change with the times. The world has become a whole lot more complicated. For example, using financial and IT experts in relevant cases.
I rarely see an attempt to test jury reliability. One test that can be
done is to test jury consistency. It will not prove that juries reliably >>> give the right verdict, but it could prove they do not, a falsification. >>> That appears to be the test being done here.
On a tiny scale that will prove nothing statistically.
That point was made too. We have very little research or (therefore) evidence relating to the UK jury system. It's a sytem that relies on something between blind faith and notions of common sense
It was hoped this programme would get the ball rolling.
I don't think it's anything to do with blind faith, more with the
principle that someone should be tried on serious matters by his peers
not by some appointed or self-appointed elite.
In message <l44hvdF9e6gU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:34:22 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I don't think it's anything to do with blind faith, more with the
principle that someone should be tried on serious matters by his peers
not by some appointed or self-appointed elite.
In that case, should the need arise, I'll insist all the jurors are
Oxbridge graduates.
On 27/02/2024 00:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l44hvdF9e6gU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:34:22 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I don't think it's anything to do with blind faith, more with the >>>principle that someone should be tried on serious matters by his
peers not by some appointed or self-appointed elite.
In that case, should the need arise, I'll insist all the jurors are >>Oxbridge graduates.
In a democracy, your peers are your fellow citizens.
In message <l45mjpFejg9U4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:39 on Tue, 27
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/02/2024 00:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l44hvdF9e6gU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:34:22 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I don't think it's anything to do with blind faith, more with the
principle that someone should be tried on serious matters by his
peers not by some appointed or self-appointed elite.
In that case, should the need arise, I'll insist all the jurors are
Oxbridge graduates.
In a democracy, your peers are your fellow citizens.
Is that how peer review of scientific papers works?
On 27 Feb 2024 at 10:08:14 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l45mjpFejg9U4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:39 on Tue, 27
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/02/2024 00:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l44hvdF9e6gU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:34:22 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I don't think it's anything to do with blind faith, more with the
principle that someone should be tried on serious matters by his
peers not by some appointed or self-appointed elite.
In that case, should the need arise, I'll insist all the jurors are
Oxbridge graduates.
In a democracy, your peers are your fellow citizens.
Is that how peer review of scientific papers works?
Who are one's peers is contextual. If one is talking about the criminal >justice system and you are a Peer of the Realm then your peers are (or at >least used to be) your fellow Peers. If, as I suspect, you are commoner like >me then from a criminal justice POV your peers are all your fellow citizens. >OTOH, if you are publishing a scientific paper your peers are fellow >scientists in that field, perhaps a slightly more metaphorical usage.
On 26/02/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
On 26/02/2024 08:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
Hopefully not OT.
For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an
interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview
notes:
In this legal experiment, actors recreate a real-life murder trial
word-for-word from the original transcripts in front of two juries made
up or ordinary people. The juries are unaware of each other. The case is >>> of a husband who killed his wife with a hammer but denies murder (names
and dates have been changed).
The deliberations of each jury is followed, including comments made
during their tea-breaks.
I wasn't intending to watch it but I'll record it and someone can
comment on whether it seems to be a useful insight into jury
deliberations or merely a tabloid-style gimmick.
Many on this group claim that jury verdicts should be respected. That
they give some added value establishing the facts of a case. We should
not question their validity, because we have not heard all the evidence.
I find this argument irritating. I see no reason to believe jurors,
laymen, with no experience, are good at weighing evidence.
I rarely see an attempt to test jury reliability. One test that can be
done is to test jury consistency. It will not prove that juries reliably
give the right verdict, but it could prove they do not, a falsification.
That appears to be the test being done here.
I do respect the jury system, but not because I think it's good at
deciding on the truth of the evidence. I think that argument is legal pantomime. Rather, I think the value of jury is in accepting the
application of the law to the common man. Is the law fair, will the
common man enforce it.
On 26/02/2024 12:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think you have entirely missed the point of that argument then.
There is plenty of reason to believe that jurors - laymen, with no
experience but who have however seen all the evidence and heard all the
legal argument - are likely to come to a more meaningful decision than
the inhabitants of this group - laymen, with no experience and who have
seen very little of the evidence and heard very little of the argument.
You say there is plenty of reason, and yet you do not give any reason. Perhaps you think there are some obvious truths in your statements, but
I don't see them.
As I said jury verdict consistency is testable, falsifiable. The fact
that this is never tested suggests that senior people in the legal
system don't really care if juries are reliable.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team,
based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a
way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team,
based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a
way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team,
based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a
way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
On a case I heard many years ago - the first I'd ever sat on - it was the other way around.
After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the defendant.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team,
based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a
way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
On a case I heard many years ago - the first I'd ever sat on - it was the other way around.
After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the defendant.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team,
based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a
way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
On a case I heard many years ago - the first I'd ever sat on - it was the other way around.
After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the defendant.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 13:18:41 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team, >>>> based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a >>>> way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
On a case I heard many years ago - the first I'd ever sat on - it was the
other way around.
After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the
defendant.
But in that situation, of course, you are entitled to find that there is no case to answer!
On 28/02/2024 13:18, Handsome Jack wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team, >>>> based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a >>>> way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
On a case I heard many years ago - the first I'd ever sat on - it was the other way around.
After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the defendant.
On what basis? You hadn't at that stage had the law explained to you,
you hadn't had the significance of the evidence explained to you, and
you hadn't, obviously, had the benefit of discussion with your peers in
the jury room.
If the judge thought there was no case to answer, he would have
instructed the jury to acquit.
It's clear therefore, with all his experience, that he was rather less certain than you. Do you not think you should have listened to him at
least?
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 13:18, Handsome Jack wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if >>>>> the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team, >>>>> based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a >>>>> way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow >>>>> jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet >>>> they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The >>>> prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
On a case I heard many years ago - the first I'd ever sat on - it was the other way around.
After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the defendant.
On what basis? You hadn't at that stage had the law explained to you,
you hadn't had the significance of the evidence explained to you, and
you hadn't, obviously, had the benefit of discussion with your peers in
the jury room.
I do not need any such instruction when I can see that the entire case is
one person's word against another and there is no definite way to tell who
is lying.
If the judge thought there was no case to answer, he would have
instructed the jury to acquit.
It's clear therefore, with all his experience, that he was rather less
certain than you. Do you not think you should have listened to him at
least?
In the end, I had to, but what he said didn't convince me that white is black.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team,
based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a
way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow
jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
On 28/02/2024 16:43, Handsome Jack wrote:
I do not need any such instruction when I can see that the entire case is
one person's word against another and there is no definite way to tell who >> is lying.
It was your job as a member of the jury to decide, not not to decide,
which is just an abrogation of your responsibility.
And the standard of proof is not 100% as you seem to believe.
If cases with no doubt whatsoever were brought to court, they wouldn't
need juries to decide them, would they?
If the judge thought there was no case to answer, he would have
instructed the jury to acquit.
It's clear therefore, with all his experience, that he was rather less
certain than you. Do you not think you should have listened to him at
least?
In the end, I had to, but what he said didn't convince me that white is black.
You said in your other post this afternoon that the jury in your case
ended up hung. Other people on the jury clearly didn't agree with your 'instant acquittal', did they? And you failed to convince enough of
them to your way of thinking even after arguing your case.
What does that tell you?
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 16:43, Handsome Jack wrote:
I do not need any such instruction when I can see that the entire case is >>> one person's word against another and there is no definite way to tell who >>> is lying.
It was your job as a member of the jury to decide, not not to decide,
Huh?
which is just an abrogation of your responsibility.
And the standard of proof is not 100% as you seem to believe.
It isn't?
If cases with no doubt whatsoever were brought to court, they wouldn't
need juries to decide them, would they?
Yes. They would need juries to decide whether there was no doubt whatsoever.
If the judge thought there was no case to answer, he would have
instructed the jury to acquit.
It's clear therefore, with all his experience, that he was rather less >>>> certain than you. Do you not think you should have listened to him at >>>> least?
In the end, I had to, but what he said didn't convince me that white is black.
You said in your other post this afternoon that the jury in your case
ended up hung. Other people on the jury clearly didn't agree with your
'instant acquittal', did they? And you failed to convince enough of
them to your way of thinking even after arguing your case.
What does that tell you?
That other people are not as rational as I am.
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red
team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red
team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case,
yet they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court.
The prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite plausible that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange opinions with each other about whether they are inclined to believe the defendant or not. It doesn't mean that they have finally made up their minds.
What is interesting about the Channel 4 experiment is - what I have
alluded to in a previous post - how the jury approaches the important
topic of "loss of control". A young juror who has never been in a relationship where he had arguments with his partner was seemingly
unable to accept that a person could kill his partner through loss of control. Older jurors who remember physical battles with wives,
husbands, former partners, are much more willing to give the defendant
the benefit of the doubt and to say that he loved the victim very much
but was provoked beyond endurance and no longer had control over his
actions when he first tried to strangle her and then picked up a hammer
and smashed her head in.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from jurors,
is a worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from over-fertile imaginations?
On 29/02/2024 09:47, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if the >>>> blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team, based on
the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a way of showing
how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow jurors thereby
rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that there's
going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet they all seem
to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was sent for
experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The prosecution >>> made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates considered it, and >>> proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you can't do that, said the >>> clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite plausible
that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange opinions with each
other about whether they are inclined to believe the defendant or not. It >> doesn't mean that they have finally made up their minds.
In a real case, I think they're told not to discuss it even amongst themselves
before they enter the jury room, so in that sense it's a bit unreal.
And we have had one contributor here who was on a real jury who says he made up
his mind to acquit after just hearing the prosecution case. Which is rather disturbing.
To the credit of the jury members in the programme, though, I do appreciate those who are prepared to accept others' views and even change their initial views as the case has progressed.
What is interesting about the Channel 4 experiment is - what I have alluded to
in a previous post - how the jury approaches the important topic of "loss of >> control". A young juror who has never been in a relationship where he had >> arguments with his partner was seemingly unable to accept that a person could
kill his partner through loss of control. Older jurors who remember physical >> battles with wives, husbands, former partners, are much more willing to give >> the defendant the benefit of the doubt and to say that he loved the victim >> very much but was provoked beyond endurance and no longer had control over his
actions when he first tried to strangle her and then picked up a hammer and >> smashed her head in.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from jurors, is a
worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from over-fertile imaginations?
I think several, the women especially, have been swayed rather too much by emotion and tears into feeling sorry for the guy ("I just want to give him a hug").
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red
team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite plausible that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange opinions with each other about whether they are inclined to believe the defendant or not. It doesn't mean that they have finally made up their minds.
What is interesting about the Channel 4 experiment is - what I have
alluded to in a previous post - how the jury approaches the important
topic of "loss of control". A young juror who has never been in a relationship where he had arguments with his partner was seemingly
unable to accept that a person could kill his partner through loss of control. Older jurors who remember physical battles with wives,
husbands, former partners, are much more willing to give the defendant
the benefit of the doubt and to say that he loved the victim very much
but was provoked beyond endurance and no longer had control over his
actions when he first tried to strangle her and then picked up a hammer
and smashed her head in.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from jurors,
is a worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from over-fertile imaginations?
On 29/02/2024 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/02/2024 09:47, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as
if the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the
red team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know
that there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal
case, yet they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it. >>>>
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court.
The prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the
magistrates considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant
guilty. Er, you can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard
the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite
plausible that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange
opinions with each other about whether they are inclined to believe
the defendant or not. It doesn't mean that they have finally made up
their minds.
In a real case, I think they're told not to discuss it even amongst
themselves before they enter the jury room, so in that sense it's a
bit unreal.
And we have had one contributor here who was on a real jury who says
he made up his mind to acquit after just hearing the prosecution case.
Which is rather disturbing.
As I recall he said it was just one person's word against the other, so
I assume reasonable doubt existed, in his mind.
The defence would have
been pretty bad if it convinced his to change his mind and convict.
I would find it more disturbing if he had made up his mind to convict at
that point.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from
jurors, is a worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from
over-fertile imaginations?
I think several, the women especially, have been swayed rather too
much by emotion and tears into feeling sorry for the guy ("I just want
to give him a hug").
The problem I had watching that part was that he is an actor. Not the
real person who may or may not have come over the same way. So I
wouldn't be able to get it out of my mind that he is acting.
I may have
missed something, but do these jurors think this is actually real, as
opposed to an old real case being acted out?
On 29/02/2024 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/02/2024 09:47, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as
if the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the
red team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know
that there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal
case, yet they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it. >>>>
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court.
The prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the
magistrates considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant
guilty. Er, you can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard
the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite
plausible that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange
opinions with each other about whether they are inclined to believe
the defendant or not. It doesn't mean that they have finally made up
their minds.
In a real case, I think they're told not to discuss it even amongst
themselves before they enter the jury room, so in that sense it's a
bit unreal.
And we have had one contributor here who was on a real jury who says
he made up his mind to acquit after just hearing the prosecution case.
Which is rather disturbing.
As I recall he said it was just one person's word against the other, so
I assume reasonable doubt existed, in his mind. The defence would have
been pretty bad if it convinced his to change his mind and convict.
I would find it more disturbing if he had made up his mind to convict at
that point.
To the credit of the jury members in the programme, though, I do
appreciate those who are prepared to accept others' views and even
change their initial views as the case has progressed.
What is interesting about the Channel 4 experiment is - what I have
alluded to in a previous post - how the jury approaches the important
topic of "loss of control". A young juror who has never been in a
relationship where he had arguments with his partner was seemingly
unable to accept that a person could kill his partner through loss of
control. Older jurors who remember physical battles with wives,
husbands, former partners, are much more willing to give the
defendant the benefit of the doubt and to say that he loved the
victim very much but was provoked beyond endurance and no longer had
control over his actions when he first tried to strangle her and then
picked up a hammer and smashed her head in.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from
jurors, is a worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from
over-fertile imaginations?
I think several, the women especially, have been swayed rather too
much by emotion and tears into feeling sorry for the guy ("I just want
to give him a hug").
The problem I had watching that part was that he is an actor. Not the
real person who may or may not have come over the same way. So I
wouldn't be able to get it out of my mind that he is acting. I may have missed something, but do these jurors think this is actually real, as
opposed to an old real case being acted out?
What is interesting about the Channel 4 experiment is - what I have
alluded to in a previous post - how the jury approaches the important
topic of "loss of control". A young juror who has never been in a relationship where he had arguments with his partner was seemingly
unable to accept that a person could kill his partner through loss of control. Older jurors who remember physical battles with wives,
husbands, former partners, are much more willing to give the defendant
the benefit of the doubt and to say that he loved the victim very much
but was provoked beyond endurance and no longer had control over his
actions when he first tried to strangle her and then picked up a hammer
and smashed her head in.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from jurors,
is a worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from over-fertile imaginations?
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case
that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real jury at
the time. Maybe it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
On 29/02/2024 11:49, kat wrote:
On 29/02/2024 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/02/2024 09:47, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if the
blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team, based
on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a way of >>>>>> showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow jurors >>>>>> thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that >>>>> there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet >>>>> they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was sent >>>>> for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you can't
do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite
plausible that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange
opinions with each other about whether they are inclined to believe the >>>> defendant or not. It doesn't mean that they have finally made up their minds.
In a real case, I think they're told not to discuss it even amongst
themselves before they enter the jury room, so in that sense it's a bit unreal.
And we have had one contributor here who was on a real jury who says he made
up his mind to acquit after just hearing the prosecution case. Which is
rather disturbing.
As I recall he said it was just one person's word against the other, so I
assume reasonable doubt existed, in his mind.
No doubt existed in his mind at all.
"After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the defendant"
When asked on what basis, he said only that [in his view] it was just one person's word against another's.
would have halted the trial and instructed the jury to acquit since they could
not possibly decide a case beyond reasonable doubt on that basis. But he didn't. And that's probably because there is always more in any case that is
brought by the CPS which is charged with bringing cases only where they consider
there is a realistic prospect of securing a conviction at trial (which means over 50%).
Why any such evidence was ignored by our juror is not clear.
But it was obviously appreciated by a significant number of the other jurors as
the jury as a whole ended up hung. They did not accept our juror's rapid and
certain view.
The defence would have been pretty bad if it convinced his to change his mind
and convict.
Indeed.
I would find it more disturbing if he had made up his mind to convict at that
point.
I think bias either way is pretty bad. We all surely want the guilty to be convicted as well as the innocent to go free, so it has to be thoughtfully considered not instantly decided.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from jurors, is
a worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from over-fertile imaginations?
I think several, the women especially, have been swayed rather too much by >>> emotion and tears into feeling sorry for the guy ("I just want to give him a
hug").
The problem I had watching that part was that he is an actor. Not the real >> person who may or may not have come over the same way. So I wouldn't be able >> to get it out of my mind that he is acting.
On that, all we can do is trust the programme makers to have done their research
to make it as accurate as they could.
Elsewhere, there's a lot of evidence to show the lengths they go to. The frankly
wonderful portrayal of the main characters in Mr Bates v The Post Office is a case in point, especially since we have the characters in real life to compare
with the actors' portrayals.
I may have missed something, but do these jurors think this is actually real,
as opposed to an old real case being acted out?
The genuine reactions of the jury members say to me that they are taking it very
seriously and not just regarding it as watching a play, even if they know (as they surely must) that they are being filmed.
On 29/02/2024 11:49, kat wrote:
On 29/02/2024 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/02/2024 09:47, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if the
blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team, based
on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a way of >>>>>> showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow jurors >>>>>> thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that >>>>> there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet >>>>> they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was sent >>>>> for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The
prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you can't
do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
She wasn't impressed.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite
plausible that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange
opinions with each other about whether they are inclined to believe the >>>> defendant or not. It doesn't mean that they have finally made up their minds.
In a real case, I think they're told not to discuss it even amongst
themselves before they enter the jury room, so in that sense it's a bit unreal.
And we have had one contributor here who was on a real jury who says he made
up his mind to acquit after just hearing the prosecution case. Which is
rather disturbing.
As I recall he said it was just one person's word against the other, so I
assume reasonable doubt existed, in his mind. The defence would have been >> pretty bad if it convinced his to change his mind and convict.
I would find it more disturbing if he had made up his mind to convict at that
point.
To the credit of the jury members in the programme, though, I do appreciate >>> those who are prepared to accept others' views and even change their initial
views as the case has progressed.
What is interesting about the Channel 4 experiment is - what I have alluded
to in a previous post - how the jury approaches the important topic of "loss
of control". A young juror who has never been in a relationship where he >>>> had arguments with his partner was seemingly unable to accept that a person
could kill his partner through loss of control. Older jurors who remember >>>> physical battles with wives, husbands, former partners, are much more
willing to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and to say that he >>>> loved the victim very much but was provoked beyond endurance and no longer >>>> had control over his actions when he first tried to strangle her and then >>>> picked up a hammer and smashed her head in.
The concept of "that could easily have been me, doing that" from jurors, is
a worrying one! And is it really true, or is it from over-fertile imaginations?
I think several, the women especially, have been swayed rather too much by >>> emotion and tears into feeling sorry for the guy ("I just want to give him a
hug").
The problem I had watching that part was that he is an actor. Not the real >> person who may or may not have come over the same way. So I wouldn't be able >> to get it out of my mind that he is acting. I may have missed something, but >> do these jurors think this is actually real, as opposed to an old real case >> being acted out?
I think the defendant and the witnesses and the lawyers are all reading a script. Does one necessarily feel swayed by the defendant expressing sorrow and
crying real tears, or (like Louise Woodward) staring impassively at the court?
I think if the jury were told that it wasn't a real trial but a re-enactment of
a real trial and that they should try to make a decision as if it was a real trial, they should find it quite easy to do so - in fact, knowing that they aren't actually going to send someone to gaol for murder for 20 years might make
it easier to reach an objective decision.
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real jury at the time. Maybe
it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
On 29/02/2024 12:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/02/2024 11:49, kat wrote:
On 29/02/2024 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
"After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit
the defendant"
When asked on what basis, he said only that [in his view] it was just
one person's word against another's.
Yes, he had reasonable doubt that there could be proof that the accused committed the crime and if you have that - you acquit.
Now, if that's what the judge thought too, he
would have halted the trial and instructed the jury to acquit since
they could not possibly decide a case beyond reasonable doubt on that
basis. But he didn't. And that's probably because there is always
more in any case that is brought by the CPS which is charged with
bringing cases only where they consider there is a realistic prospect
of securing a conviction at trial (which means over 50%).
Why any such evidence was ignored by our juror is not clear.
The judge considering the case should continue is not evidence of guilt.
But we don't know if he was asked to halt the trial, only that there was
a period of discussion on something while the jury was absent. The
poster thought it was a possiblity, he doesn't know.
But it was obviously appreciated by a significant number of the other
jurors as the jury as a whole ended up hung. They did not accept our
juror's rapid and certain view.
That's why we have a number of people who are asked to agree. Different people will come to different conclusions.
The defence would have been pretty bad if it convinced his to change
his mind and convict.
Indeed.
I would find it more disturbing if he had made up his mind to convict
at that point.
I think bias either way is pretty bad. We all surely want the guilty
to be convicted as well as the innocent to go free, so it has to be
thoughtfully considered not instantly decided.
My reading of the reason behind his decison was that it couldn't be
proved,
not that he necesssarily thought the accused pure and innocent.
In our system the prosecution is required to prove its case. One would hope that they would put up a case good enough that the juror
wants to hear the defence in order to consider. But if they don't, what
can he do?
More interesting would be to ask, did the defence convince him of
innocence or did he still think - just Not Proven?
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case
that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real jury at
the time. Maybe it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
I haven't looked it up, but I don't see how they could make the
programme, from a defamation point of view, if it was based on
a case in which the defendant was not found guilty.
On 29/02/2024 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case
that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real jury at
the time. Maybe it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
I haven't looked it up, but I don't see how they could make the
programme, from a defamation point of view, if it was based on
a case in which the defendant was not found guilty.
The issue was murder or manslaughter. It was agreed that he had
bludgeoned his wife to death. But if it was a "loss of control" that
would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.
In the experiment, one team of jurors decided it was murder, the other decided it was manslaughter. There were some flaws in the experiment -
for me, it was very disappointing that the judge's summing up and his
list of questions that the jury must consider were not quoted for us.
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors to decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a reasonable person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of control if faced
with the same situation, being goaded and provoked. But another more important lesson is that some people on a jury are more eloquent or vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the weaker jurors eventually
give in. The experiment proves that when they give in, sometimes this
will favour the prosecution and sometimes the defence.
On 29/02/2024 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case
that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real jury at
the time. Maybe it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
I haven't looked it up, but I don't see how they could make the
programme, from a defamation point of view, if it was based on
a case in which the defendant was not found guilty.
The issue was murder or manslaughter. It was agreed that he had
bludgeoned his wife to death. But if it was a "loss of control" that
would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.
In the experiment, one team of jurors decided it was murder, the other decided it was manslaughter. There were some flaws in the experiment -
for me, it was very disappointing that the judge's summing up and his
list of questions that the jury must consider were not quoted for us.
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors to decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a reasonable person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of control if faced
with the same situation, being goaded and provoked. But another more important lesson is that some people on a jury are more eloquent or vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the weaker jurors eventually
give in. The experiment proves that when they give in, sometimes this
will favour the prosecution and sometimes the defence.
The real case on which the experiment was based: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-20733450
On 29/02/2024 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case
that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real jury at
the time. Maybe it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
I haven't looked it up, but I don't see how they could make the
programme, from a defamation point of view, if it was based on
a case in which the defendant was not found guilty.
The issue was murder or manslaughter. It was agreed that he had
bludgeoned his wife to death. But if it was a "loss of control" that
would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.
In the experiment, one team of jurors decided it was murder, the other decided it was manslaughter. There were some flaws in the experiment -
for me, it was very disappointing that the judge's summing up and his
list of questions that the jury must consider were not quoted for us.
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors to decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a reasonable person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of control if faced
with the same situation, being goaded and provoked. But another more important lesson is that some people on a jury are more eloquent or vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the weaker jurors eventually
give in. The experiment proves that when they give in, sometimes this
will favour the prosecution and sometimes the defence.
For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an >interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview notes:
On 26/02/2024 in message <urhj67$2eapb$1@dont-email.me> Jeff Layman wrote:
For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an
interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview
notes:
I have been following this thread and have watched the series so far.
Not a gavel in sight which is unusual for a broadcaster's depiction of a court!
Why has the defence been presented first? Wouldn't the prosecution
usually put its case first then the defence try to rebut/ameliorate it?
I've never been in a criminal court so know nothing of their workings.
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red
team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet
they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
I wonder what the verdict of the 'manslaughter' jury would have been if
it had been just a trial for murder. I'm not convinced it would have
been not guilty.
On 29/02/2024 23:23, The Todal wrote:
On 29/02/2024 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case
that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real jury at >>>> the time. Maybe it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
I haven't looked it up, but I don't see how they could make the
programme, from a defamation point of view, if it was based on
a case in which the defendant was not found guilty.
The issue was murder or manslaughter. It was agreed that he had
bludgeoned his wife to death. But if it was a "loss of control" that
would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.
In the experiment, one team of jurors decided it was murder, the other
decided it was manslaughter. There were some flaws in the experiment -
for me, it was very disappointing that the judge's summing up and his
list of questions that the jury must consider were not quoted for us.
Me too, especially as this key aspect of 'loss of control' didn't
actually seem to form much part of either jury's discussions. They
seemed to gloss over that a bit, preferring to concentrate on whether he
was a nice man who was provoked, ignoring his deliberate, calculated act
of leaving her on the floor after he strangled her, which could have
been in the heat of the moment, and coolly going outside to his workshop
to pick up the hammer with which he killed her when he came back, which wasn't.
Maybe it's the law at fault for not being very clear. In the good old
days murder had to be with malice aforethought and with intent to cause
harm even if not to kill. Perhaps that is the sole question the jury
should have had to answer. Once you give a jury a choice of offence,
it's confusing, and the tendency must be to choose the lesser, just in
case you're wrong.
I wonder what the verdict of the 'manslaughter' jury would have been if
it had been just a trial for murder. I'm not convinced it would have
been not guilty.
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors
to decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a
reasonable person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of
control if faced with the same situation, being goaded and provoked.
But another more important lesson is that some people on a jury are
more eloquent or vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the
weaker jurors eventually give in. The experiment proves that when they
give in, sometimes this will favour the prosecution and sometimes the
defence.
Actually, it's the stronger ones who 'eventually' give in. The weaker
ones just follow the leader and/or the side that seems to be winning
from a very early stage.
And the stronger ones give in only when it is inevitable that the
verdict of the jury as a whole is going to be one they did not really
believe in. What else can they do? They can only square it in their
own minds by reluctantly saying maybe there is some doubt and I was
mistaken.
But the programme I think made it very clear that anyone with a tattoo
should never be allowed on a jury, especially if they are inclined like
a Millwall supporter to punch the air with a triumphant 'Yerst, get in theyah!' after the jury decides his way. I doubt if I'm alone in saying that was somewhat distasteful.
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that
would be a good idea.
On 26/02/2024 in message <urhj67$2eapb$1@dont-email.me> Jeff Layman wrote:
For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an >>interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview notes:
I have been following this thread and have watched the series so far. Not
a gavel in sight which is unusual for a broadcaster's depiction of a court!
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if
the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red
team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case,
yet they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
"He wouldn't be here if he wasn't guilty" was the exact phrase used by
two jurors when I did jury service in about 1975. I'm sure some others thought as much.
On 01/03/2024 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/02/2024 23:23, The Todal wrote:
On 29/02/2024 16:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It didn't take long for me to find reports online of the actual case >>>>> that is being re-enacted and the actual decision made by a real
jury at
the time. Maybe it would be a spoiler to quote the URL.
I haven't looked it up, but I don't see how they could make the
programme, from a defamation point of view, if it was based on
a case in which the defendant was not found guilty.
The issue was murder or manslaughter. It was agreed that he had
bludgeoned his wife to death. But if it was a "loss of control" that
would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.
In the experiment, one team of jurors decided it was murder, the
other decided it was manslaughter. There were some flaws in the
experiment - for me, it was very disappointing that the judge's
summing up and his list of questions that the jury must consider were
not quoted for us.
Me too, especially as this key aspect of 'loss of control' didn't
actually seem to form much part of either jury's discussions. They
seemed to gloss over that a bit, preferring to concentrate on whether
he was a nice man who was provoked, ignoring his deliberate,
calculated act of leaving her on the floor after he strangled her,
which could have been in the heat of the moment, and coolly going
outside to his workshop to pick up the hammer with which he killed her
when he came back, which wasn't.
Maybe it's the law at fault for not being very clear. In the good old
days murder had to be with malice aforethought and with intent to
cause harm even if not to kill. Perhaps that is the sole question the
jury should have had to answer. Once you give a jury a choice of
offence, it's confusing, and the tendency must be to choose the
lesser, just in case you're wrong.
I wonder what the verdict of the 'manslaughter' jury would have been
if it had been just a trial for murder. I'm not convinced it would
have been not guilty.
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors
to decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a
reasonable person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of
control if faced with the same situation, being goaded and provoked.
But another more important lesson is that some people on a jury are
more eloquent or vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the
weaker jurors eventually give in. The experiment proves that when
they give in, sometimes this will favour the prosecution and
sometimes the defence.
Actually, it's the stronger ones who 'eventually' give in. The weaker
ones just follow the leader and/or the side that seems to be winning
from a very early stage.
And the stronger ones give in only when it is inevitable that the
verdict of the jury as a whole is going to be one they did not really
believe in. What else can they do? They can only square it in their
own minds by reluctantly saying maybe there is some doubt and I was
mistaken.
But the programme I think made it very clear that anyone with a tattoo
should never be allowed on a jury, especially if they are inclined
like a Millwall supporter to punch the air with a triumphant 'Yerst,
get in theyah!' after the jury decides his way. I doubt if I'm alone
in saying that was somewhat distasteful.
Yes, I agree. He saw it as a personal victory, a proof that his own
opinions could be forced on other people who were less sure of their
ground. Perhaps a man who had never had the respect and recognition he thought he deserved, until this moment when he could look like the hero
of the day.
I wonder how often that happens in juries. At the end of the experiment several jurors were emotional and upset because they realised that they
might have been right all along, and had failed to stand up for their
views.
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that
would be a good idea.
On 2024-03-01, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 26/02/2024 in message <urhj67$2eapb$1@dont-email.me> Jeff Layman wrote: >>>For those who haven't looked at a TV guide, Channel 4 is showing an >>>interesting programme for four nights, starting tonight. The preview >>>notes:
I have been following this thread and have watched the series so far. Not
a gavel in sight which is unusual for a broadcaster's depiction of a
court!
I saw several barristers grumbling on Twitter though that the barristers
in the trial were depicted as roaming freely about the court like a US
TV drama rather than like an actual UK court.
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that
would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
We don't know how real juries make up their minds but it seems quite >plausible that at the end of each day of evidence they would exchange >opinions with each other about whether they are inclined to believe the >defendant or not.
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that
would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors to
decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a reasonable
person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of control if faced
with the same situation, being goaded and provoked. But another more
important lesson is that some people on a jury are more eloquent or
vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the weaker jurors eventually
give in. The experiment proves that when they give in, sometimes this
will favour the prosecution and sometimes the defence.
Indeed. I would be quite surprised if most juries aren't strongly
influenced by one or two dominant personalities in the room. It's
what seems to happen in other situations of group decision-making.
When I did jury service
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 13:18, Handsome Jack wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as if >>>>> the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red team, >>>>> based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth performing as a >>>>> way of showing how individual jurors can sway the opinions of fellow >>>>> jurors thereby rendering the decision rather unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case, yet >>>> they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
It's reminiscent of the time when Mrs Norm was a CAB adviser and was
sent for experience to see what happens in the magistrates' court. The >>>> prosecution made its case against a poor motorist, the magistrates
considered it, and proceeded to find the defendant guilty. Er, you
can't do that, said the clerk, you haven't heard the defence.
On a case I heard many years ago - the first I'd ever sat on - it was the other way around.
After hearing the prosecution's case I decided instantly to acquit the defendant.
On what basis? You hadn't at that stage had the law explained to you,
you hadn't had the significance of the evidence explained to you, and
you hadn't, obviously, had the benefit of discussion with your peers in
the jury room.
I do not need any such instruction when I can see that the entire case is
one person's word against another and there is no definite way to tell who
is lying.
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 01:42:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors to
decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a reasonable >>> person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of control if faced
with the same situation, being goaded and provoked. But another more
important lesson is that some people on a jury are more eloquent or
vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the weaker jurors eventually >>> give in. The experiment proves that when they give in, sometimes this
will favour the prosecution and sometimes the defence.
Indeed. I would be quite surprised if most juries aren't strongly >>influenced by one or two dominant personalities in the room. It's
what seems to happen in other situations of group decision-making.
Anecdotally, neither of the juries I have served on (so far) suffered from that. But I can see how it could happen, if the composition of the juries
had been different. And, at the time, it did occur to me how it might play out if we had such a character on the jury. That's one of the reasons why I deliberately did all I could to ensure that I was elected as foreman (successfully on both occasions), because I was concerned about the
prospect of someone unsuitable performing that duty.
On 1 Mar 2024 22:43:29 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 in message <uqc4ui52bbda1fcjhq1tebbh6276r4l54v@4ax.com> Mark >>Goodge wrote:
When I did jury service
I don't know if you can answer this but it seemed to me that in 4th
episode there was at least one juror who had made his own mind up and saw >>his job as persuading everybody else to his way of thinking. He even >>celebrated when he got them all on his side.
Sadly in many business meetings that sort of behaviour is prevalent. Did >>you see it on your case(s) and, if so, how did you (presumably as foreman) >>handle it?
It didn't happen in the cases where I was on the jury. Although that may be partly because I didn't let it happen. I don't want to come across here as blowing my own trumpet, but chairing meetings happens to be one of the
things I'm good at (not necessarily from natural talent, I've done quite a lot of training on it), and one of the key things I've learned over the
years is that if you establish your authority early on, then you generally don't get issues with people trying to dominate the discussion. Obviously, there are exceptions to that, which I have encountered in my role as a councillor. But, fortunately, it didn't arise in the jury room.
On 01/03/2024 in message <uqc4ui52bbda1fcjhq1tebbh6276r4l54v@4ax.com> Mark >Goodge wrote:
When I did jury service
I don't know if you can answer this but it seemed to me that in 4th
episode there was at least one juror who had made his own mind up and saw
his job as persuading everybody else to his way of thinking. He even >celebrated when he got them all on his side.
Sadly in many business meetings that sort of behaviour is prevalent. Did
you see it on your case(s) and, if so, how did you (presumably as foreman) >handle it?
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Anecdotally, neither of the juries I have served on (so far) suffered from >> that. But I can see how it could happen, if the composition of the juries
had been different. And, at the time, it did occur to me how it might play >> out if we had such a character on the jury. That's one of the reasons why I >> deliberately did all I could to ensure that I was elected as foreman
(successfully on both occasions), because I was concerned about the
prospect of someone unsuitable performing that duty.
So, er, there *was* such a character on the your jury ;-)
(That's not a criticism. Just because someone *can* exert a
disproportionate influence on the jury doesn't mean that they
inevitably will, or that it is always a bad thing if they do.)
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 01:42:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors to >>>> decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a reasonable >>>> person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of control if faced
with the same situation, being goaded and provoked. But another more
important lesson is that some people on a jury are more eloquent or
vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the weaker jurors eventually >>>> give in. The experiment proves that when they give in, sometimes this
will favour the prosecution and sometimes the defence.
Indeed. I would be quite surprised if most juries aren't strongly
influenced by one or two dominant personalities in the room. It's
what seems to happen in other situations of group decision-making.
Anecdotally, neither of the juries I have served on (so far) suffered from >> that. But I can see how it could happen, if the composition of the juries
had been different. And, at the time, it did occur to me how it might play >> out if we had such a character on the jury. That's one of the reasons why I >> deliberately did all I could to ensure that I was elected as foreman
(successfully on both occasions), because I was concerned about the
prospect of someone unsuitable performing that duty.
So, er, there *was* such a character on the your jury ;-)
(That's not a criticism. Just because someone *can* exert a
disproportionate influence on the jury doesn't mean that they
inevitably will, or that it is always a bad thing if they do.)
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 22:51:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Anecdotally, neither of the juries I have served on (so far) suffered from >>> that. But I can see how it could happen, if the composition of the juries >>> had been different. And, at the time, it did occur to me how it might play >>> out if we had such a character on the jury. That's one of the reasons why I >>> deliberately did all I could to ensure that I was elected as foreman
(successfully on both occasions), because I was concerned about the
prospect of someone unsuitable performing that duty.
So, er, there *was* such a character on the your jury ;-)
(That's not a criticism. Just because someone *can* exert a >>disproportionate influence on the jury doesn't mean that they
inevitably will, or that it is always a bad thing if they do.)
I don't think being chairman is, per se, an opportunity to exert a disproportionate influence. It only is if the person fulfilling the role is already predisposed to exert a disproportionate influence. If done properly, the chairman's role is to damp down the influence of anyone who does want to be dominant, and ensure that everyone's voice is heard. That's particularly the case on a jury, where the ideal is to reach a consensus, and even if you can't do that to have an overwhelming (10 - 2) majority. It's not like, say, a council meeting, where a 12 - 11 majority is decisive.
On 1 Mar 2024 at 22:51:01 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 01:42:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-02-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Lessons from the experiment include: it is very difficult for jurors to >>>>> decide whether the defendant had a loss of control and that a reasonable >>>>> person (such as each juror) would have had a loss of control if faced >>>>> with the same situation, being goaded and provoked. But another more >>>>> important lesson is that some people on a jury are more eloquent or
vociferous or overbearing, than others. And the weaker jurors eventually >>>>> give in. The experiment proves that when they give in, sometimes this >>>>> will favour the prosecution and sometimes the defence.
Indeed. I would be quite surprised if most juries aren't strongly
influenced by one or two dominant personalities in the room. It's
what seems to happen in other situations of group decision-making.
Anecdotally, neither of the juries I have served on (so far) suffered from >>> that. But I can see how it could happen, if the composition of the juries >>> had been different. And, at the time, it did occur to me how it might play >>> out if we had such a character on the jury. That's one of the reasons why I >>> deliberately did all I could to ensure that I was elected as foreman
(successfully on both occasions), because I was concerned about the
prospect of someone unsuitable performing that duty.
So, er, there *was* such a character on the your jury ;-)
(That's not a criticism. Just because someone *can* exert a
disproportionate influence on the jury doesn't mean that they
inevitably will, or that it is always a bad thing if they do.)
There is all the difference in the world between dominating a meeting demanding your view is accepted and chairing a meeting without obviously favouring either view while everyone gets a chance to speak without intimidation.
In a sense a good chairman dominates the meeting but he or she can do so without dominating the decision.
This ability may not common, but it does exist.
On 1 Mar 2024 22:43:29 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 in message <uqc4ui52bbda1fcjhq1tebbh6276r4l54v@4ax.com> Mark >> Goodge wrote:
When I did jury service
I don't know if you can answer this but it seemed to me that in 4th
episode there was at least one juror who had made his own mind up and saw
his job as persuading everybody else to his way of thinking. He even
celebrated when he got them all on his side.
Sadly in many business meetings that sort of behaviour is prevalent. Did
you see it on your case(s) and, if so, how did you (presumably as foreman) >> handle it?
It didn't happen in the cases where I was on the jury. Although that may be partly because I didn't let it happen.
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 22:51:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Anecdotally, neither of the juries I have served on (so far) suffered from >>> that. But I can see how it could happen, if the composition of the juries >>> had been different. And, at the time, it did occur to me how it might play >>> out if we had such a character on the jury. That's one of the reasons why I >>> deliberately did all I could to ensure that I was elected as foreman
(successfully on both occasions), because I was concerned about the
prospect of someone unsuitable performing that duty.
So, er, there *was* such a character on the your jury ;-)
(That's not a criticism. Just because someone *can* exert a
disproportionate influence on the jury doesn't mean that they
inevitably will, or that it is always a bad thing if they do.)
I don't think being chairman is, per se, an opportunity to exert a disproportionate influence. It only is if the person fulfilling the role is already predisposed to exert a disproportionate influence. If done properly, the chairman's role is to damp down the influence of anyone who does want to be dominant, and ensure that everyone's voice is heard. That's particularly the case on a jury, where the ideal is to reach a consensus, and even if you can't do that to have an overwhelming (10 - 2) majority. It's not like, say, a council meeting, where a 12 - 11 majority is decisive.
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 22:51:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Anecdotally, neither of the juries I have served on (so far) suffered from >>>> that. But I can see how it could happen, if the composition of the juries >>>> had been different. And, at the time, it did occur to me how it might play >>>> out if we had such a character on the jury. That's one of the reasons why I
deliberately did all I could to ensure that I was elected as foreman
(successfully on both occasions), because I was concerned about the
prospect of someone unsuitable performing that duty.
So, er, there *was* such a character on the your jury ;-)
(That's not a criticism. Just because someone *can* exert a
disproportionate influence on the jury doesn't mean that they
inevitably will, or that it is always a bad thing if they do.)
I don't think being chairman is, per se, an opportunity to exert a
disproportionate influence. It only is if the person fulfilling the role is >> already predisposed to exert a disproportionate influence. If done properly, >> the chairman's role is to damp down the influence of anyone who does want to >> be dominant, and ensure that everyone's voice is heard. That's particularly >> the case on a jury, where the ideal is to reach a consensus, and even if you >> can't do that to have an overwhelming (10 - 2) majority. It's not like, say, >> a council meeting, where a 12 - 11 majority is decisive.
But even the way you describe it, the chair's role is to control the
jury.
On 2024-03-01, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2024 22:43:29 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 in message <uqc4ui52bbda1fcjhq1tebbh6276r4l54v@4ax.com> Mark >>>Goodge wrote:
When I did jury service
I don't know if you can answer this but it seemed to me that in 4th >>>episode there was at least one juror who had made his own mind up and saw >>>his job as persuading everybody else to his way of thinking. He even >>>celebrated when he got them all on his side.
Sadly in many business meetings that sort of behaviour is prevalent. Did >>>you see it on your case(s) and, if so, how did you (presumably as foreman) >>>handle it?
It didn't happen in the cases where I was on the jury. Although that may be >> partly because I didn't let it happen. I don't want to come across here as >> blowing my own trumpet, but chairing meetings happens to be one of the
things I'm good at (not necessarily from natural talent, I've done quite a >> lot of training on it), and one of the key things I've learned over the
years is that if you establish your authority early on, then you generally >> don't get issues with people trying to dominate the discussion. Obviously, >> there are exceptions to that, which I have encountered in my role as a
councillor. But, fortunately, it didn't arise in the jury room.
Yup, no dominant personalities in your jury room at all, no sir ;-)
On 01/03/2024 23:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
It didn't happen in the cases where I was on the jury. Although that may be >> partly because I didn't let it happen.
Using what authority? Citing which rules?
On 01/03/2024 23:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
I don't think being chairman is, per se, an opportunity to exert a
disproportionate influence. It only is if the person fulfilling the role is >> already predisposed to exert a disproportionate influence. If done properly, >> the chairman's role is to damp down the influence of anyone who does want to >> be dominant, and ensure that everyone's voice is heard. That's particularly >> the case on a jury, where the ideal is to reach a consensus, and even if you >> can't do that to have an overwhelming (10 - 2) majority. It's not like, say, >> a council meeting, where a 12 - 11 majority is decisive.
Point of order, Mr Chairman, there is no 'chairman' in a jury. There is
an appointed 'foreman' whose sole role is to be the spokesman for the
jury in its external dealings, eg when asking the judge for
clarifications, or delivering the jury's verdict in court.
Point of order, Mr Chairman, there is no 'chairman' in a jury. There is
an appointed 'foreman' whose sole role is to be the spokesman for the jury
in its external dealings, eg when asking the judge for clarifications, or >delivering the jury's verdict in court.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 08:54:45 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 23:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
It didn't happen in the cases where I was on the jury. Although that may be >>> partly because I didn't let it happen.
Using what authority? Citing which rules?
Using my authority and skill as chairman of the meeting.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 08:50:24 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 23:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
I don't think being chairman is, per se, an opportunity to exert a
disproportionate influence. It only is if the person fulfilling the role is >>> already predisposed to exert a disproportionate influence. If done properly,
the chairman's role is to damp down the influence of anyone who does want to
be dominant, and ensure that everyone's voice is heard. That's particularly >>> the case on a jury, where the ideal is to reach a consensus, and even if you
can't do that to have an overwhelming (10 - 2) majority. It's not like, say,
a council meeting, where a 12 - 11 majority is decisive.
Point of order, Mr Chairman, there is no 'chairman' in a jury. There is
an appointed 'foreman' whose sole role is to be the spokesman for the
jury in its external dealings, eg when asking the judge for
clarifications, or delivering the jury's verdict in court.
In practice, it's almost impossible for a group of that size to have a meaningful discussion without someone acting as chairman, even if
informally. And the role of the foreman is not simply to speak on behalf of the jury when they return to deliver the verdict but to lead the discussion in the jury room and ensure that everybody's voice is heard.
On 02/03/2024 in message <l4g7ifF30bbU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells wrote:
Point of order, Mr Chairman, there is no 'chairman' in a jury. There
is an appointed 'foreman' whose sole role is to be the spokesman for
the jury in its external dealings, eg when asking the judge for
clarifications, or delivering the jury's verdict in court.
As a matter of interest I did a quick Google, these are the first hits:
A chairman is the leader of a business meeting or group.
(In court) a foreman is a person who presides over a jury and speaks on
its behalf.
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that
would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
On 02/03/2024 10:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 08:54:45 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 01/03/2024 23:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
It didn't happen in the cases where I was on the jury. Although that may be
partly because I didn't let it happen.
Using what authority? Citing which rules?
Using my authority and skill as chairman of the meeting.
Which you weren't.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be >commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
On 02/03/2024 10:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
In practice, it's almost impossible for a group of that size to have a
meaningful discussion without someone acting as chairman, even if
informally. And the role of the foreman is not simply to speak on behalf of >> the jury when they return to deliver the verdict but to lead the discussion >> in the jury room and ensure that everybody's voice is heard.
Where do you get that idea from please?
On 02/03/2024 10:58, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 02/03/2024 in message <l4g7ifF30bbU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells >>wrote:
Point of order, Mr Chairman, there is no 'chairman' in a jury. There is >>>an appointed 'foreman' whose sole role is to be the spokesman for the >>>jury in its external dealings, eg when asking the judge for >>>clarifications, or delivering the jury's verdict in court.
As a matter of interest I did a quick Google, these are the first hits:
A chairman is the leader of a business meeting or group.
(In court) a foreman is a person who presides over a jury and speaks on
its behalf.
There are no results found on Google for that statement after the
brackets, and I note you have chosen not to give any reference.
Care to tell us where it comes from? If such a quotation does exist, you >see, it's almost certainly American and therefore irrelevant.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:01:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
That might increase the skill level of jurors, but it would also reduce
their diversity. Practically anyone can take two weeks out of their everyday life to do jury service. Far fewer people could take a year out, even if they're only doing their jury service part time.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 10:47:54 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 10:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
In practice, it's almost impossible for a group of that size to have a
meaningful discussion without someone acting as chairman, even if
informally. And the role of the foreman is not simply to speak on behalf of >>> the jury when they return to deliver the verdict but to lead the discussion >>> in the jury room and ensure that everybody's voice is heard.
Where do you get that idea from please?
In my case, from the rather strange source of the judge, who, before he sent us out to deliberate, told us that we should start by electing a foreman to chair the discussion and act as spokesman on our return. But then, eh, what would he know? Maybe a few random bloggers on the Internet might be a better source:
https://bestsolicitorsonline.co.uk/jury-duty/
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-181024.pdf
https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/56293/1/Sally%20Nelson%20PhD%20Thesis%20final.pdf
https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/about/a-guide-to-juries.html
On 01/03/2024 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that
would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
On 01/03/2024 in message <uqc4ui52bbda1fcjhq1tebbh6276r4l54v@4ax.com> Mark Goodge wrote:
When I did jury service
I don't know if you can answer this but it seemed to me that in 4th episode there was at least one juror who had made his own mind up and saw his job as persuading everybody else to his way of thinking. He even celebrated when he got
them all on his side.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 10:46:02 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 10:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 08:54:45 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 01/03/2024 23:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
It didn't happen in the cases where I was on the jury. Although that may be
partly because I didn't let it happen.
Using what authority? Citing which rules?
Using my authority and skill as chairman of the meeting.
Which you weren't.
Gosh, how right you are. Despite actually being there, and taking part in
the discussions, I now realise that your all-seeing eye has far better knowledge of the event than I possibly could.
You should find a way to monetise this skill of yours. It could make you a millionaire.
On 01/03/2024 22:43, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 01/03/2024 in message <uqc4ui52bbda1fcjhq1tebbh6276r4l54v@4ax.com> Mark
Goodge wrote:
When I did jury service
I don't know if you can answer this but it seemed to me that in 4th
episode there was at least one juror who had made his own mind up and saw >>his job as persuading everybody else to his way of thinking. He even >>celebrated when he got them all on his side.
And on the other,when the vote was 9-3 and they had to get to 10-2, I
didn't much like the comment that the two men wouldn't change so they had
to persuade the woman.to change her mind. She did, but clearly wasn't all >that happy. Was it, give in and we get to go home?
On 02/03/2024 12:01, The Todal wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a >>>> period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that >>>> would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
I'm sure employers would just love that!
Anyway, as I asked before, trained (or indoctrinated) in what, and to
what end?
On 02/03/2024 12:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 10:47:54 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 10:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
In practice, it's almost impossible for a group of that size to have a >>>> meaningful discussion without someone acting as chairman, even if
informally. And the role of the foreman is not simply to speak on behalf of
the jury when they return to deliver the verdict but to lead the discussion
in the jury room and ensure that everybody's voice is heard.
Where do you get that idea from please?
In my case, from the rather strange source of the judge, who, before he sent >> us out to deliberate, told us that we should start by electing a foreman to >> chair the discussion and act as spokesman on our return. But then, eh, what >> would he know? Maybe a few random bloggers on the Internet might be a better >> source:
https://bestsolicitorsonline.co.uk/jury-duty/
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-181024.pdf
https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/56293/1/Sally%20Nelson%20PhD%20Thesis%20final.pdf
https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/about/a-guide-to-juries.html
No, I'd like something a bit more official please. Something written
with a bit of authority rather than just possibly false assumptions and >recollections.
On 02/03/2024 12:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:01:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
That might increase the skill level of jurors, but it would also reduce
their diversity. Practically anyone can take two weeks out of their everyday >> life to do jury service. Far fewer people could take a year out, even if
they're only doing their jury service part time.
That opens up a more general discussion, though. Do we want jurors who
are a random selection of citizens, or might it be better to let people
apply for the job of juror and be interviewed and show that they have a >reasonable standard of intelligence and no "baggage" in their past that
might make them biased?
Or maybe it might be possible to have a year of being a juror but to fit
it in with one's day job. Maybe that would work rather better than going
from one trial to another without any break at all. Perhaps have a break
from being a jury for 4 to 6 weeks before being assigned to a new case.
On 02/03/2024 13:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:01, The Todal wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be >>>>> for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a >>>>> period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that >>>>> would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
I'm sure employers would just love that!
Anyway, as I asked before, trained (or indoctrinated) in what, and to
what end?
A valid question, of course. To put it rather clumsily, trained in how
to assert one's opinions and not back down just to please other people.
On 02/03/2024 13:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:01, The Todal wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be >>>>> for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a >>>>> period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that >>>>> would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
I'm sure employers would just love that!
Anyway, as I asked before, trained (or indoctrinated) in what, and to
what end?
A valid question, of course. To put it rather clumsily, trained in how
to assert one's opinions and not back down just to please other people.
On 02/03/2024 13:30, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:01:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
That might increase the skill level of jurors, but it would also reduce
their diversity. Practically anyone can take two weeks out of their
everyday
life to do jury service. Far fewer people could take a year out, even if >>> they're only doing their jury service part time.
That opens up a more general discussion, though. Do we want jurors who
are a random selection of citizens, or might it be better to let
people apply for the job of juror and be interviewed and show that
they have a reasonable standard of intelligence and no "baggage" in
their past that might make them biased?
Or maybe it might be possible to have a year of being a juror but to
fit it in with one's day job. Maybe that would work rather better than
going from one trial to another without any break at all. Perhaps have
a break from being a jury for 4 to 6 weeks before being assigned to a
new case.
I'd be in favour of professional jurors, either full-time or part-time,
that are screened,
suitably trained,
and paid a decent wage for their service.
I'd go so far as to mandate it in complex trials, for example financial fraud.
And before people jump up and down decrying this system, I'll remind
them that this is thought to be the best system for cases in the
Magistrates' Court
- including the Youth Court, the Court of Appeal, and
the Supreme Court, plus employment tribunals, to name just some.
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as
part of their pupillage.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:36:24 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 13:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:01, The Todal wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be >>>>>> for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another for a >>>>>> period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that >>>>>> would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
I'm sure employers would just love that!
Anyway, as I asked before, trained (or indoctrinated) in what, and to
what end?
A valid question, of course. To put it rather clumsily, trained in how
to assert one's opinions and not back down just to please other people.
And trained in how to reach a conclusion based on the evidence presented, rather than a preconceived notion.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:22:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 10:47:54 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 02/03/2024 10:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
In practice, it's almost impossible for a group of that size to have a >>>>> meaningful discussion without someone acting as chairman, even if
informally. And the role of the foreman is not simply to speak on behalf of
the jury when they return to deliver the verdict but to lead the discussion
in the jury room and ensure that everybody's voice is heard.
Where do you get that idea from please?
In my case, from the rather strange source of the judge, who, before he sent
us out to deliberate, told us that we should start by electing a foreman to >>> chair the discussion and act as spokesman on our return. But then, eh, what >>> would he know? Maybe a few random bloggers on the Internet might be a better
source:
https://bestsolicitorsonline.co.uk/jury-duty/
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-181024.pdf
https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/56293/1/Sally%20Nelson%20PhD%20Thesis%20final.pdf
https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/about/a-guide-to-juries.html
No, I'd like something a bit more official please. Something written
with a bit of authority rather than just possibly false assumptions and
recollections.
The third link is a paper which quotes, and cites, the actual transcript of
a judge's directions to the jury at the end of an actual trial. Here's an excerpt:
When you retire you should select a foreman or forewoman who will chair
your discussions and act as spokesperson on behalf of all of you. You can
take with you your notebooks and paper exhibits placed before you. The
other exhibits will be sent through to you if you need them. So now,
members of the jury will you please, when the jury bailiffs have been
sworn, retire to your room to consider your verdicts.
Although I don't have a transcript, the concurs with my recollection of the directions given to us by the judge in both the trials on which I was a juror. Now, I'm sure you're going to argue that I'm misremembering, and that you know far better than I do what the judge told us.
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as
part of their pupillage.
On 02/03/2024 13:30, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:01:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
That might increase the skill level of jurors, but it would also reduce
their diversity. Practically anyone can take two weeks out of their
everyday
life to do jury service. Far fewer people could take a year out, even if >>> they're only doing their jury service part time.
That opens up a more general discussion, though. Do we want jurors who
are a random selection of citizens, or might it be better to let people
apply for the job of juror and be interviewed and show that they have a
reasonable standard of intelligence and no "baggage" in their past that
might make them biased?
Or maybe it might be possible to have a year of being a juror but to fit
it in with one's day job. Maybe that would work rather better than going
from one trial to another without any break at all. Perhaps have a break
from being a jury for 4 to 6 weeks before being assigned to a new case.
I'd be in favour of professional jurors, either full-time or part-time,
that are screened, suitably trained, and paid a decent wage for their >service.
I'd go so far as to mandate it in complex trials, for example financial >fraud.
And before people jump up and down decrying this system, I'll remind
them that this is thought to be the best system for cases in the
Magistrates' Court - including the Youth Court, the Court of Appeal, and
the Supreme Court, plus employment tribunals, to name just some.
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as
part of their pupillage.
On 02/03/2024 15:52, Mark Goodge wrote:
The third link is a paper which quotes, and cites, the actual transcript of >> a judge's directions to the jury at the end of an actual trial. Here's an
excerpt:
When you retire you should select a foreman or forewoman who will chair >> your discussions and act as spokesperson on behalf of all of you. You can >> take with you your notebooks and paper exhibits placed before you. The
other exhibits will be sent through to you if you need them. So now,
members of the jury will you please, when the jury bailiffs have been
sworn, retire to your room to consider your verdicts.
And what I'm asking is on what is that instruction based? Is it statute
law, is it a Practice Direction, or what? Where is it written down what
the foreman's role and responsibilities are, what authority, if any, he
has in the jury room, and what sanctions, if any, he or anyone can apply
if members of the jury don't go along with them?
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as
part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought was the right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
On 01/03/2024 11:01, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 28/02/2024 11:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 10:16, The Todal wrote:
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite impressed. It looks as
if the blue team jurors will reach a different decision from the red
team, based on the same evidence. That's an experiment worth
performing as a way of showing how individual jurors can sway the
opinions of fellow jurors thereby rendering the decision rather
unsatisfactory.
Having watched the first episode, I'm quite concerned. You know that
there's going to be another side to the story in any criminal case,
yet they all seem to have made up their minds without hearing it.
"He wouldn't be here if he wasn't guilty" was the exact phrase used by
two jurors when I did jury service in about 1975. I'm sure some
others thought as much.
It's why we have as many as 12 on a jury. It's to subject those who are biassed and bigoted to scrutiny and criticism, and minimise or outvote
any extreme minorities.
Was the end verdict in the trial you mention guilty? Did those with the preconceived view prevail or not?
On 02/03/2024 14:36, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2024 13:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:01, The Todal wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this would be >>>>>> for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another
for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe that >>>>>> would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what
already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury
member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
I'm sure employers would just love that!
Anyway, as I asked before, trained (or indoctrinated) in what, and to
what end?
A valid question, of course. To put it rather clumsily, trained in how
to assert one's opinions and not back down just to please other people.
In any jury that is undecided from the start, as I suspect most are,
some people have to change their minds, or 'back down' as you put it, to reach the majority required for a proper, acceptable verdict.
How long do you fight on if it's clear the overall verdict of the jury
is inevitably going to be against you anyway?
How long would you happily tolerate a single extremist nutter on the
jury holding out for an untenable position when all others are against
him? Or even two or three maintaining perhaps that cyclists or Just
Stop Oil protestors should never be convicted whatever they've done?
On 02/03/2024 12:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:01:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be
commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
That might increase the skill level of jurors, but it would also reduce
their diversity. Practically anyone can take two weeks out of their everyday >> life to do jury service. Far fewer people could take a year out, even if
they're only doing their jury service part time.
That opens up a more general discussion, though. Do we want jurors who are a random selection of citizens, or might it be better to let people apply for the
job of juror and be interviewed and show that they have a reasonable standard of
intelligence and no "baggage" in their past that might make them biased?
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 17:10:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 15:52, Mark Goodge wrote:
The third link is a paper which quotes, and cites, the actual transcript of >>> a judge's directions to the jury at the end of an actual trial. Here's an >>> excerpt:
When you retire you should select a foreman or forewoman who will chair >>> your discussions and act as spokesperson on behalf of all of you. You can
take with you your notebooks and paper exhibits placed before you. The >>> other exhibits will be sent through to you if you need them. So now, >>> members of the jury will you please, when the jury bailiffs have been >>> sworn, retire to your room to consider your verdicts.
And what I'm asking is on what is that instruction based? Is it statute
law, is it a Practice Direction, or what? Where is it written down what
the foreman's role and responsibilities are, what authority, if any, he
has in the jury room, and what sanctions, if any, he or anyone can apply
if members of the jury don't go along with them?
It didn't occur to me at the time to stick my hand up and ask the judge for chapter and verse of the regulations he was basing his directions to us on.
I just kind of assumed that he knew what he was doing. He is, after all, a professional, and I'm not. And giving directions to the jury is part of his job. So none of us on the jury had any reason to question them. We just did as he told us. Both times, in fact, with two different judges, who, oddly enough, both said pretty much the same thing. But the directions were given in open court, so if either the prosecution or the defence felt that we were being in any way misdirected they had ample opportunity to query it. Again, though, neither did. Either time.
However, having refined my Google-fu a little I have now found the current official guidance, otherwise known as the Crown Court Compendium. You can read it here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-June-2023-updated-Feb-2024.pdf
and the website where that is linked can be found here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/
This includes a template form of words for giving directions to the jury.
The wording here is not quite as I recall it, nor is it quite the same as in the paper I cited, although that may well be simply a consequence of it having been updated since I sat on a jury and that paper was written. The current template wording has this to say about organising the discussion:
It is entirely up to you how you organise your discussions in the
deliberating room.
But you may find it helpful to choose a juror to chair
your discussions.
This person should ensure that every juror is able to
express their views, that no one feels pressured into reaching a specific
decision and that the jury stays focussed on the legal questions I have
outlined for you.
On 02/03/2024 in message <l4go2hF5llsU3@mid.individual.net> kat wrote:
On 01/03/2024 22:43, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 01/03/2024 in message <uqc4ui52bbda1fcjhq1tebbh6276r4l54v@4ax.com> Mark >>> Goodge wrote:
When I did jury service
I don't know if you can answer this but it seemed to me that in 4th episode >>> there was at least one juror who had made his own mind up and saw his job as
persuading everybody else to his way of thinking. He even celebrated when he
got them all on his side.
And on the other,when the vote was 9-3 and they had to get to 10-2, I didn't >> much like the comment that the two men wouldn't change so they had to persuade
the woman.to change her mind. She did, but clearly wasn't all that happy. >> Was it, give in and we get to go home?
That to me is the real issue with Jury trials but is there a viable alternative?
On 02/03/2024 15:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 14:36, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2024 13:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:01, The Todal wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The lawyer at the end suggested that a new way of doing this
would be
for a jury to be trained and then to hear one case after another >>>>>>> for a
period of time eg a fortnight, rather than just one case. Maybe >>>>>>> that
would be a good idea.
I must admit I'd got the impression from somewhere that that's what >>>>>> already happens. Not the training bit, but that if the trial a jury >>>>>> member sits on is short then they go on to sit on another one too.
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to
be commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
I'm sure employers would just love that!
Anyway, as I asked before, trained (or indoctrinated) in what, and
to what end?
A valid question, of course. To put it rather clumsily, trained in
how to assert one's opinions and not back down just to please other
people.
In any jury that is undecided from the start, as I suspect most are,
some people have to change their minds, or 'back down' as you put it,
to reach the majority required for a proper, acceptable verdict.
How long do you fight on if it's clear the overall verdict of the jury
is inevitably going to be against you anyway?
I've never been on a jury. But morally I'd say you should continue to
vote with your conscience rather than adopt the lazy way out and say "if
the majority disagree with me, then they must be right and I must be
wrong".
On 02/03/2024 20:45, Mark Goodge wrote:
However, having refined my Google-fu a little I have now found the current >> official guidance, otherwise known as the Crown Court Compendium. You can
read it here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-June-2023-updated-Feb-2024.pdf
and the website where that is linked can be found here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/
This includes a template form of words for giving directions to the jury.
The wording here is not quite as I recall it, nor is it quite the same as in >> the paper I cited, although that may well be simply a consequence of it
having been updated since I sat on a jury and that paper was written. The
current template wording has this to say about organising the discussion:
It is entirely up to you how you organise your discussions in the
deliberating room.
Exactly.
But you may find it helpful to choose a juror to chair
your discussions.
Thus, it's a suggestion only, only if you all agree, and only for as
long as you all agree. It's not a permanent appointment.
I didn't notice that either jury in the programme nominated anyone to
'chair the meeting' as you put it earlier, or that anyone actually did.
Did you?
This person should ensure that every juror is able to
express their views, that no one feels pressured into reaching a specific >> decision and that the jury stays focussed on the legal questions I have >> outlined for you.
That should actually be the responsibility of every member of the jury,
not just one.
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as
part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought was the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all
jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
They also wouldn't be able to bring their legal knowledge to bear
either, to bring in matters not adduced in evidence during the trial, or explained in the judge's summing in.
There would need to be checks and balances.
On 02/03/2024 16:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:06, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 13:30, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2024 12:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:01:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
I got that slightly wrong. Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor,
suggests at the end of the programme that the Danish system is to be >>>>>> commended - jurors are paid for 12 months, trained and paid.
That might increase the skill level of jurors, but it would also reduce >>>>> their diversity. Practically anyone can take two weeks out of their
everyday
life to do jury service. Far fewer people could take a year out,
even if
they're only doing their jury service part time.
That opens up a more general discussion, though. Do we want jurors
who are a random selection of citizens, or might it be better to let
people apply for the job of juror and be interviewed and show that
they have a reasonable standard of intelligence and no "baggage" in
their past that might make them biased?
Or maybe it might be possible to have a year of being a juror but to
fit it in with one's day job. Maybe that would work rather better
than going from one trial to another without any break at all.
Perhaps have a break from being a jury for 4 to 6 weeks before being
assigned to a new case.
I'd be in favour of professional jurors, either full-time or
part-time, that are screened,
For what?
Suitable intelligence, including an ability to understand and follow instructions and logical reasoning, plus an ability to think critically.
suitably trained,
In what, and to what end?
Unfortunately, we live in a world where everything has been dumbed down
and some people now have the attention span of a gnat.
Some training on how to evaluate evidence, to hold competing thoughts
and analyse them.
Plus the ability to accept that others are entitled to hold a contrary opinion and that this doesn't make them wrong, and to make their point
in a discussion without displaying signs of anger.
Not forgetting, of course, and most importantly, training on how to
reach a logical, legally sound conclusion based only on the evidence presented in court, in line with the law as explained to them, as free
of bias, prejudice and preconceptions as is possible.
and paid a decent wage for their service.
I'd go so far as to mandate it in complex trials, for example
financial fraud.
I doubt if there are many, if any, who could be trained [indoctrinated]
in that.
I'd hire specialists from within the industry to form the jury. For
example in a complex insurance fraud, hire insurance specialists to form
the jury as they will be much better placed to understand the expert evidence.
And before people jump up and down decrying this system, I'll remind
them that this is thought to be the best system for cases in the
Magistrates' Court
That's not really thought the best system for dispensing true justice by
anyone. It's just cheap, quick, rough and convenient, with the
magistrates acting as:
"judge and jury
(also act as judge and jury) to make or have the power to make an
important decision affecting someone by yourself – used showing
disapproval"
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/be-judge-and-jury
Do you have a reputable cite, preferably from someone familiar with the
UK legal system that the Magistrates' Court does not "dispense true
justice"? I have a number of friends and colleagues that are
magistrates and they would take great issue with the statement.
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as
part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought was the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all
jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
On 02/03/2024 21:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:06:21 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >> wrote:
I'd be in favour of professional jurors, either full-time or part-time,
that are screened, suitably trained, and paid a decent wage for their
service.
Isn't that essentially what magistrates do, though?
Yes. And what happens in the majority of civil trials.
I'd go so far as to mandate it in complex trials, for example financial
fraud.
And before people jump up and down decrying this system, I'll remind
them that this is thought to be the best system for cases in the
Magistrates' Court - including the Youth Court, the Court of Appeal, and >>> the Supreme Court, plus employment tribunals, to name just some.
Well, yes. But there's a reason why serious criminal cases can't be heard by >> magistrates, and why the route to the higher courts is via the crown court >> and a decision by a jury. And the higher courts don't, generally, decide on >> guilt or innocence. They typically rule on points of law, and decide whether >> a conviction is safe or unsafe - which is not at all the same as deciding
whether it's right or wrong.
I'm aware of how the current system works. I'm proposing potential
changes for those unhappy with the present system. The changed system
will not operate the same as the present system so rather than merely >pointing out the differences between the proposed new system and
existing system, it would be much more useful to say why you think the >current system is better than the proposed new system, or any flaws you >perceive in the new system. Merely saying, "That different system is >different" doesn't move things forward too much, IMHO.
And, for the record, I'm not suggesting this as a perfect solution to
every single problem, perceived or real, with the current system. I'm
just throwing it out there as a proposal.
Please feel free to rip it to shreds. I am not in the slightest bit
precious about it. :-)
It ought to stop vocal jurors from bullying less self-assured jurors
into submission and which I consider more important than the failings of
the system proposed. It would also hopefully curtain the consideration
of irrelevant information. They would also know the difference between >drawing inferences and speculating. As I say, I don't think it is
perfect. But then neither is the current system.
On 02/03/2024 16:51, Norman Wells wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative
recommendation would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman
of each jury as part of their pupillage.
Good grief.
You're welcome to proffer alternative suggestions.
On 03/03/2024 17:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation >>>>> would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as >>>>> part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every case >>>> would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought was
the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all
jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
Mr Ribbens' point is still valid though. The other members of the
jury would likely defer to him, be scared to contradict him, and go
along with whatever he says. It's what happens when a supposed
'expert' is introduced into the proceedings.
So, it's a suggestion that doesn't even get off the ground, and won't
happen in a thousand years.
I disagree. Lawyers and even judges can now sit on juries. They would
have little difficulty understanding the difference between what jurors
are expected to do and what lawyers or judges do. They would also find
it easy to show deference and respect to other jurors.
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation >>>> would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as
part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought was the >>> right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all
jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
Mr Ribbens' point is still valid though. The other members of the jury would likely defer to him, be scared to contradict him, and go along
with whatever he says. It's what happens when a supposed 'expert' is introduced into the proceedings.
So, it's a suggestion that doesn't even get off the ground, and won't
happen in a thousand years.
On 03/03/2024 17:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative recommendation >>>>> would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as >>>>> part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every case >>>> would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought was
the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all
jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
Mr Ribbens' point is still valid though. The other members of the
jury would likely defer to him, be scared to contradict him, and go
along with whatever he says. It's what happens when a supposed
'expert' is introduced into the proceedings.
So, it's a suggestion that doesn't even get off the ground, and won't
happen in a thousand years.
I disagree. Lawyers and even judges can now sit on juries. They would
have little difficulty understanding the difference between what jurors
are expected to do and what lawyers or judges do. They would also find
it easy to show deference and respect to other jurors.
On 04/03/2024 01:41, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative
recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as >>>>>> part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every
case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought
was the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all
jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
Mr Ribbens' point is still valid though. The other members of the
jury would likely defer to him, be scared to contradict him, and go
along with whatever he says. It's what happens when a supposed
'expert' is introduced into the proceedings.
So, it's a suggestion that doesn't even get off the ground, and won't
happen in a thousand years.
I disagree. Lawyers and even judges can now sit on juries. They would
have little difficulty understanding the difference between what
jurors are expected to do and what lawyers or judges do. They would
also find it easy to show deference and respect to other jurors.
If he's there pretending to be just one of the lads as you imply, what
does he bring to the party?
On 04/03/2024 07:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/03/2024 01:41, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative
recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each jury as >>>>>>> part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost every >>>>>> case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought
was the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all
jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
Mr Ribbens' point is still valid though. The other members of the
jury would likely defer to him, be scared to contradict him, and go
along with whatever he says. It's what happens when a supposed
'expert' is introduced into the proceedings.
So, it's a suggestion that doesn't even get off the ground, and
won't happen in a thousand years.
I disagree. Lawyers and even judges can now sit on juries. They would
have little difficulty understanding the difference between what
jurors are expected to do and what lawyers or judges do. They would
also find it easy to show deference and respect to other jurors.
If he's there pretending to be just one of the lads as you imply, what
does he bring to the party?
Life experience, just like any other juror. As the Law Society said, "It
is in the public interest that jurors are drawn from as wide a pool as possible".
A lawyer or judge sitting on a jury will know, from the guidance given
to him/her, that he must accept the directions on the law that the judge
has given even if those directions seem incorrect. And a lawyer or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant, "he looks like a wrong
'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the face of a killer, ennit".
On 04/03/2024 08:50, The Todal wrote:
On 04/03/2024 07:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/03/2024 01:41, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative
recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each
jury as
part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost
every case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought >>>>>>> was the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all >>>>>> jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion,
including the foreperson.
Mr Ribbens' point is still valid though. The other members of the
jury would likely defer to him, be scared to contradict him, and go
along with whatever he says. It's what happens when a supposed
'expert' is introduced into the proceedings.
So, it's a suggestion that doesn't even get off the ground, and
won't happen in a thousand years.
I disagree. Lawyers and even judges can now sit on juries. They
would have little difficulty understanding the difference between
what jurors are expected to do and what lawyers or judges do. They
would also find it easy to show deference and respect to other jurors.
If he's there pretending to be just one of the lads as you imply,
what does he bring to the party?
Life experience, just like any other juror. As the Law Society said,
"It is in the public interest that jurors are drawn from as wide a
pool as possible".
A lawyer or judge sitting on a jury will know, from the guidance given
to him/her, that he must accept the directions on the law that the
judge has given even if those directions seem incorrect. And a lawyer
or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant, "he looks like
a wrong 'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the face of a killer,
ennit".
So, he's just one of the lads. But the suggestion is that he would be installed in the jury with special status, ie as 'chairman' with certain powers to control it, which means he isn't.
I don't think you can have it both ways.
And a lawyer or judge
would be less likely to say, of the defendant, "he looks like a wrong
'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the face of a killer, ennit".
On 04/03/2024 08:50, The Todal wrote:
And a lawyer or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant,
"he looks like a wrong 'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the
face of a killer, ennit".
I would think it almost exactly the opposite. Some trials are triable
either way, evidence suggests you are less likely to be convicted if you appear in the crown court.
The tattooed Millwall supporter on the jury is more likely to know about local police corruption, and hence be less likely to convict solely on unsupported police testimony than a magistrate.
Judges, magistrates, police are selected, influenced, induced to
implement government policy, to toe the line. They are naturally
conformist, authoritarian, people. In a way that random juries are not.
The jury is a check on government exercising tyrannical power, something
I think we need now, more than ever.
If we require expert assessment of complicated cases, that can and
should occur prior to trial. Weak cases should not go to trial. It
should not be enough for the CPS to assesses that a jury is 50% likely
to convict someone of being a witch, they should know witches don't exist.
The "suggestion" isn't mine, and I think it's a very bad suggestion. No individual should have special status on a jury. I think the jury are expected to elect a foreman but I haven't found any official guide to
how a foreman should be chosen. The foreman is merely the person who is
the spokesperson for the jury, to tell the court whether the decision is guilty or not guilty. If he starts telling people who should or should
not speak or if he says "you've had your say, please be quiet" then the jurors should overrule such interference, surely.
Are there cases where jurors compete with each other to be foreman, one perhaps citing his experience as chairman of his golf club, the other
saying that as a trade union shop steward he is good at calming a
meeting when passions run high? I do not know. But I think we should be
told. The "secrecy of the jury room" should not cover up dissatisfaction
on the part of jurors who think there is undue influence from individuals.
On 04/03/2024 10:59, Pancho wrote:
On 04/03/2024 08:50, The Todal wrote:
And a lawyer or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant,
"he looks like a wrong 'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the
face of a killer, ennit".
I would think it almost exactly the opposite. Some trials are triable
either way, evidence suggests you are less likely to be convicted if
you appear in the crown court.
The tattooed Millwall supporter on the jury is more likely to know
about local police corruption, and hence be less likely to convict
solely on unsupported police testimony than a magistrate.
Judges, magistrates, police are selected, influenced, induced to
implement government policy, to toe the line. They are naturally
conformist, authoritarian, people. In a way that random juries are not.
The jury is a check on government exercising tyrannical power,
something I think we need now, more than ever.
If we require expert assessment of complicated cases, that can and
should occur prior to trial. Weak cases should not go to trial. It
should not be enough for the CPS to assesses that a jury is 50% likely
to convict someone of being a witch, they should know witches don't
exist.
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part
of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
On 04/03/2024 08:50, The Todal wrote:
And a lawyer or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant,
"he looks like a wrong 'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the
face of a killer, ennit".
I would think it almost exactly the opposite. Some trials are triable
either way, evidence suggests you are less likely to be convicted if you appear in the crown court.
The tattooed Millwall supporter on the jury is more likely to know about local police corruption, and hence be less likely to convict solely on unsupported police testimony than a magistrate.
On 04/03/2024 10:59, Pancho wrote:
On 04/03/2024 08:50, The Todal wrote:
And a lawyer or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant,
"he looks like a wrong 'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the
face of a killer, ennit".
I would think it almost exactly the opposite. Some trials are triable
either way, evidence suggests you are less likely to be convicted if you
appear in the crown court.
The tattooed Millwall supporter on the jury is more likely to know about
local police corruption, and hence be less likely to convict solely on
unsupported police testimony than a magistrate.
Judges, magistrates, police are selected, influenced, induced to
implement government policy, to toe the line. They are naturally
conformist, authoritarian, people. In a way that random juries are not.
The jury is a check on government exercising tyrannical power, something
I think we need now, more than ever.
If we require expert assessment of complicated cases, that can and
should occur prior to trial. Weak cases should not go to trial. It
should not be enough for the CPS to assesses that a jury is 50% likely
to convict someone of being a witch, they should know witches don't exist. >>
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part
of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
The "suggestion" isn't mine, and I think it's a very bad suggestion. No individual should have special status on a jury. I think the jury are expected to elect a foreman but I haven't found any official guide to
how a foreman should be chosen. The foreman is merely the person who is
the spokesperson for the jury, to tell the court whether the decision is guilty or not guilty. If he starts telling people who should or should
not speak or if he says "you've had your say, please be quiet" then the jurors should overrule such interference, surely.
Are there cases where jurors compete with each other to be foreman, one perhaps citing his experience as chairman of his golf club, the other
saying that as a trade union shop steward he is good at calming a
meeting when passions run high? I do not know. But I think we should be
told. The "secrecy of the jury room" should not cover up dissatisfaction
on the part of jurors who think there is undue influence from individuals.
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part
of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying due to >his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly what juries >were for.
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 04/03/2024 10:59, Pancho wrote:
On 04/03/2024 08:50, The Todal wrote:
And a lawyer or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant, >>>> "he looks like a wrong 'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the
face of a killer, ennit".
I would think it almost exactly the opposite. Some trials are triable
either way, evidence suggests you are less likely to be convicted if you >>> appear in the crown court.
The tattooed Millwall supporter on the jury is more likely to know about >>> local police corruption, and hence be less likely to convict solely on
unsupported police testimony than a magistrate.
Judges, magistrates, police are selected, influenced, induced to
implement government policy, to toe the line. They are naturally
conformist, authoritarian, people. In a way that random juries are not.
The jury is a check on government exercising tyrannical power, something >>> I think we need now, more than ever.
If we require expert assessment of complicated cases, that can and
should occur prior to trial. Weak cases should not go to trial. It
should not be enough for the CPS to assesses that a jury is 50% likely
to convict someone of being a witch, they should know witches don't exist. >>>
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part
of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying due to his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly what juries were for.
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part >>> of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying
due to his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly
what juries were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your
decision-making in the jury room isn't allowed. You have to reach a
verdict solely on the evidence before you, and not on the basis of any preconceptions brought into the jury room.
Now, obviously, that's an ideal, and in reality it's impossible to
completely avoid being influenced by your own knowledge and experience. And anyone who says they can is either a liar or a fool. But jurors should have sufficient self-awareness to know when they are likely to be prejudiced in any way, and make a deliberate point of parking those preconceptions
for the duration of the trial.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence
given by an expert witness.
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part >>> of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying due to >> his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly what juries >> were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your decision-making in the jury room isn't allowed. You have to reach a verdict solely on the evidence before you, and not on the basis of any preconceptions brought into the jury room.
Now, obviously, that's an ideal, and in reality it's impossible to
completely avoid being influenced by your own knowledge and experience. And anyone who says they can is either a liar or a fool. But jurors should have sufficient self-awareness to know when they are likely to be prejudiced in any way, and make a deliberate point of parking those preconceptions for the duration of the trial.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence given by an expert witness.
Mark
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part >>> of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying due to >> his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly what juries >> were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your decision-making in the jury room isn't allowed.
On 04/03/2024 09:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/03/2024 08:50, The Todal wrote:
On 04/03/2024 07:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/03/2024 01:41, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:59, Norman Wells wrote:If he's there pretending to be just one of the lads as you imply,
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 20:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-02, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> For those that want to keep jury trials, an alternative
recommendation
would be to have a barrister assigned as the foreman of each >>>>>>>>> jury as
part of their pupillage.
As previously mentioned, if you did that then I think almost
every case
would get decided on the basis of whatever the barrister thought >>>>>>>> was the
right result. The other 11 jurors would be largely irrelevant.
I'd hope that the training for the role would include ensuring all >>>>>>> jurors are heard and that no-one person dominates the discussion, >>>>>>> including the foreperson.
Mr Ribbens' point is still valid though. The other members of the >>>>>> jury would likely defer to him, be scared to contradict him, and go >>>>>> along with whatever he says. It's what happens when a supposed
'expert' is introduced into the proceedings.
So, it's a suggestion that doesn't even get off the ground, and
won't happen in a thousand years.
I disagree. Lawyers and even judges can now sit on juries. They
would have little difficulty understanding the difference between
what jurors are expected to do and what lawyers or judges do. They
would also find it easy to show deference and respect to other jurors. >>>>
what does he bring to the party?
Life experience, just like any other juror. As the Law Society said,
"It is in the public interest that jurors are drawn from as wide a
pool as possible".
A lawyer or judge sitting on a jury will know, from the guidance given
to him/her, that he must accept the directions on the law that the
judge has given even if those directions seem incorrect. And a lawyer
or judge would be less likely to say, of the defendant, "he looks like
a wrong 'un, that tattoo is scary, I think it's the face of a killer,
ennit".
So, he's just one of the lads. But the suggestion is that he would be
installed in the jury with special status, ie as 'chairman' with certain
powers to control it, which means he isn't.
I don't think you can have it both ways.
The "suggestion" isn't mine, and I think it's a very bad suggestion. No individual should have special status on a jury. I think the jury are expected to elect a foreman but I haven't found any official guide to
how a foreman should be chosen. The foreman is merely the person who is
the spokesperson for the jury, to tell the court whether the decision is guilty or not guilty. If he starts telling people who should or should
not speak or if he says "you've had your say, please be quiet" then the jurors should overrule such interference, surely.
Are there cases where jurors compete with each other to be foreman, one perhaps citing his experience as chairman of his golf club, the other
saying that as a trade union shop steward he is good at calming a
meeting when passions run high? I do not know. But I think we should be
told. The "secrecy of the jury room" should not cover up dissatisfaction
on the part of jurors who think there is undue influence from individuals.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence given by an expert witness.
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part >>> of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying due to >> his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly what juries >> were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your decision-making in the jury room isn't allowed. You have to reach a verdict solely on the evidence before you, and not on the basis of any preconceptions brought into the jury room.
Now, obviously, that's an ideal, and in reality it's impossible to
completely avoid being influenced by your own knowledge and experience. And anyone who says they can is either a liar or a fool. But jurors should have sufficient self-awareness to know when they are likely to be prejudiced in any way, and make a deliberate point of parking those preconceptions for the duration of the trial.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence given by an expert witness.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:bojbui98ll4qdl1i5l2551cnn3ecqmt6td@4ax.com...
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a
witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you >> get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
Surely its the role of the Court to decide whether a witness is telling the truth of not by the process of examination and cross-examination ?
Its simply not the role of jurors or anyone else for that matter to share their "beliefs" with the judge, which at that stage will be totally beyond challenge, as to whether a witness is telling the truth or not.
The role of the Court is to decide cases solely on the basis of the evidence presented and tested in Court not to decide them on the basis of specialised or inside knowlege known only to individuals and brought to the attention of the Judge.
That is the whole purpose of Courtroom procedure. To sort out truth from
the lies. To establish the facts as far as is possible fronm the evidence presented on Court. As soon as you allow individiuals to go telling tales
to the Judge this undermines the whole proccess, imperfect though it
might be.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence given by >> an expert witness.
But then its quite common is it not, for expert witnesses themselves to cast doubt on the quality of the evidence given by their opposite numbers ?
bbObviously, though the courts would prefer one all-knowing expert to two who contradict each other. But it is up to the jury which they prefer.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part >>>> of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the >>>> clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying due to
his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly what juries >>> were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your decision-making >> in the jury room isn't allowed. You have to reach a verdict solely on the
evidence before you, and not on the basis of any preconceptions brought into >> the jury room.
Now, obviously, that's an ideal, and in reality it's impossible to
completely avoid being influenced by your own knowledge and experience. And >> anyone who says they can is either a liar or a fool. But jurors should have >> sufficient self-awareness to know when they are likely to be prejudiced in >> any way, and make a deliberate point of parking those preconceptions for the >> duration of the trial.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a
witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you >> get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence given by >> an expert witness.
I was on the jury in a case where the judge instructed us not to be influenced by the main witness for the prosecution being late because that was beyond his control. He did not instruct us to ignore the fact that he
was brought in handcuffed to a guard.
To what extent do you think jurors should use their life experience to
assess the credibility of the witness?
On 4 Mar 2024 at 20:48:56 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bojbui98ll4qdl1i5l2551cnn3ecqmt6td@4ax.com...
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that >>> has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a >>> witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then >>> the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you >>> get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
Surely its the role of the Court to decide whether a witness is telling the >> truth of not by the process of examination and cross-examination ?
It is the role of the barristers to elucidate and test the evidence. It is the
role of the jury to decide whether it is true or untrue. Which includes false impressions as well as lies.
Its simply not the role of jurors or anyone else for that matter to share
their "beliefs" with the judge, which at that stage will be totally beyond >> challenge, as to whether a witness is telling the truth or not.
It is their role to share their beliefs with each other, and the weight of the
evidence, (not necessarily whether what a particular person says is true, but whether the evidence as a whole is sufficient to make them sure of guilt or not), in their opinion may be implied by their verdict.
The role of the Court is to decide cases solely on the basis of the evidence >> presented and tested in Court not to decide them on the basis of specialised >> or inside knowledge known only to individuals and brought to the attention of
the Judge.
This *is* true;
admissible evidence is available to the jury, but they are not perfect. Special
knowledge not tested in court must not be resorted to by the jury. Though it must be
intolerably hard for a juror with such knowledge to not let
it influence *his personal* view but he must not reveal it to the other jurors.
That is the whole purpose of Courtroom procedure. To sort out truth from
the lies. To establish the facts as far as is possible from the evidence
presented on Court. As soon as you allow individuals to go telling tales
to the Judge this undermines the whole process, imperfect though it
might be.
But it is the jury that makes that determination.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence given by
an expert witness.
But then its quite common is it not, for expert witnesses themselves to cast >> doubt on the quality of the evidence given by their opposite numbers ?
bb
Obviously, though the courts would prefer one all-knowing expert to two who contradict each other. But it is up to the jury which they prefer.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:bojbui98ll4qdl1i5l2551cnn3ecqmt6td@4ax.com...
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a
witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you >> get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
Surely its the role of the Court to decide whether a witness is telling the >truth of not by the process of examination and cross-examination ?
Its simply not the role of jurors or anyone else for that matter to share >their "beliefs" with the judge, which at that stage will be totally beyond >challenge, as to whether a witness is telling the truth or not.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence given by >> an expert witness.
But then its quite common is it not, for expert witnesses themselves to cast >doubt on the quality of the evidence given by their opposite numbers ?
With respect, I think the above is almost completely wrong. True you should not bring specialist knowledge of people, organisations or forensic science. But ordinary experience of life, who may be lying and why, who is credible and
why, this is exactly the weighing of evidence that jurors should do. You cannot "weigh" conflicting evidence by a mathematical process!
I was out of the country when the series started and have only heard
about it within the last five or six days.
Isn't it just more reality TV? It sounds a bit like "Gogglebox"
(something else I am not remotely tempted to waste time on).
On 04/03/2024 15:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
With respect, I think the above is almost completely wrong. True you should >> not bring specialist knowledge of people, organisations or forensic science. >> But ordinary experience of life, who may be lying and why, who is credible and
why, this is exactly the weighing of evidence that jurors should do. You
cannot "weigh" conflicting evidence by a mathematical process!
Of course, you can, any weighing, ordering comparison, is a mathematical model. Perhaps not a good one, but mathematical models don't need to be
good, they just need to be better than nothing.
You will get legal professionals tell you that you cannot use maths,
because they are mathematically illiterate. It undermines their
authority. They don't want technology disrupting their gravy train.
Decision-making systems can be modelled, AI is built upon mathematical models. Even a basic understanding of maths helps, things like
probability theory, statistics, Bayesian inference are useful.
Not using "life experience" is like an AI throwing away its training,
like Bayesian inference throwing away its priors. It is just nonsense.
On 04/03/2024 14:28, JNugent wrote:
I was out of the country when the series started and have only heard
about it within the last five or six days.
Isn't it just more reality TV? It sounds a bit like "Gogglebox"
(something else I am not remotely tempted to waste time on).
Maybe you should watch it on catch-up. Or read the various interesting articles about it, in the press.
It's an experiment to test the reliability of juries and their
deliberations and their verdicts. A flawed experiment but still worthwhile.
On 5 Mar 2024 at 10:15:31 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 04/03/2024 14:28, JNugent wrote:
I was out of the country when the series started and have only heard
about it within the last five or six days.
Isn't it just more reality TV? It sounds a bit like "Gogglebox"
(something else I am not remotely tempted to waste time on).
Maybe you should watch it on catch-up. Or read the various interesting
articles about it, in the press.
It's an experiment to test the reliability of juries and their
deliberations and their verdicts. A flawed experiment but still worthwhile.
It is not powered to test anything. Nor is the test necessarily a valid one as
there is little reason to believe people will behave the same way when a real issue is at stake.
At the very best it is an amusing illustration of what jury deliberations might be like.
On 05/03/2024 10:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 10:15:31 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 04/03/2024 14:28, JNugent wrote:It is not powered to test anything. Nor is the test necessarily a valid one as
I was out of the country when the series started and have only heard
about it within the last five or six days.
Isn't it just more reality TV? It sounds a bit like "Gogglebox"
(something else I am not remotely tempted to waste time on).
Maybe you should watch it on catch-up. Or read the various interesting
articles about it, in the press.
It's an experiment to test the reliability of juries and their
deliberations and their verdicts. A flawed experiment but still worthwhile. >>
there is little reason to believe people will behave the same way when a real
issue is at stake.
At the very best it is an amusing illustration of what jury deliberations
might be like.
It's not "amusing" in the slightest.
The reason there is little reason to believe that people will behave the
same way on a real jury, is that by law jurors are prohibited from
discussing what has happened in the jury room. In the UK, anyway. Maybe
in this forum certain people will cautiously recount their own
experiences as jurors, but if they did so on national TV there is a risk
that they might be prosecuted.
The fact that several senior lawyers and academic lawyers voice their concerns at the end of the documentary is sufficient proof that the experiment was worthwhile and meaningful.
On 2024-03-04, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>> A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part >>>> of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the >>>> clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying
due to his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly
what juries were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your
decision-making in the jury room isn't allowed. You have to reach a
verdict solely on the evidence before you, and not on the basis of any
preconceptions brought into the jury room.
Now, obviously, that's an ideal, and in reality it's impossible to
completely avoid being influenced by your own knowledge and experience. And >> anyone who says they can is either a liar or a fool. But jurors should have >> sufficient self-awareness to know when they are likely to be prejudiced in >> any way, and make a deliberate point of parking those preconceptions
for the duration of the trial.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a
witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you >> get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence
given by an expert witness.
I think everything you're saying there is completely missing the point.
If you have a policeman saying "the defendant did the thing" and the defendant saying "I did not do the thing" then the jury *has* to decide
which one they believe. I'm pretty sure that in that situation the jury
is not supposed to pretend they were born yesterday.
On 04/03/2024 14:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-04, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>> A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is part >>>>> of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to the >>>>> clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying
due to his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly
what juries were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your
decision-making in the jury room isn't allowed. You have to reach a
verdict solely on the evidence before you, and not on the basis of any
preconceptions brought into the jury room.
Now, obviously, that's an ideal, and in reality it's impossible to
completely avoid being influenced by your own knowledge and experience. And >>> anyone who says they can is either a liar or a fool. But jurors should have >>> sufficient self-awareness to know when they are likely to be prejudiced in >>> any way, and make a deliberate point of parking those preconceptions
for the duration of the trial.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that >>> has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a >>> witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then >>> the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you >>> get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence
given by an expert witness.
I think everything you're saying there is completely missing the point.
If you have a policeman saying "the defendant did the thing" and the
defendant saying "I did not do the thing" then the jury *has* to decide
which one they believe. I'm pretty sure that in that situation the jury
is not supposed to pretend they were born yesterday.
The jury should decide whom they believe based on the performance of the witness in the witness box, the words used, the facial expressions, the response to cross examination (confident or hesitant or changing his/her mind) and how that fits the facts of the case from other witnesses.
Not "he's a copper from that police station that was on the news last
year, we shouldn't believe a fuckin word he says".
On 04/03/2024 14:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-04, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 12:44:26 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2024 at 11:19:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
A juror who wants to acquit because of "local police corruption" is
part
of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be reported to
the
clerk and thrown off the jury.
If he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a police witness is lying
due to his life experience then I would have thought that was exactly
what juries were for.
Using your "life experience", whatever it is, to inform your
decision-making in the jury room isn't allowed. You have to reach a
verdict solely on the evidence before you, and not on the basis of any
preconceptions brought into the jury room.
Now, obviously, that's an ideal, and in reality it's impossible to
completely avoid being influenced by your own knowledge and
experience. And
anyone who says they can is either a liar or a fool. But jurors
should have
sufficient self-awareness to know when they are likely to be
prejudiced in
any way, and make a deliberate point of parking those preconceptions
for the duration of the trial.
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience
that
has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe
that a
witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]),
then
the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself
until you
get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
[1] We've been over this before in the context of a juror having
professional knowledge which casts doubt on the quality of evidence
given by an expert witness.
I think everything you're saying there is completely missing the point.
If you have a policeman saying "the defendant did the thing" and the
defendant saying "I did not do the thing" then the jury *has* to decide
which one they believe. I'm pretty sure that in that situation the jury
is not supposed to pretend they were born yesterday.
The jury should decide whom they believe based on the performance of the witness in the witness box, the words used, the facial expressions, the response to cross examination (confident or hesitant or changing his/her mind) and how that fits the facts of the case from other witnesses.
Not "he's a copper from that police station that was on the news last
year, we shouldn't believe a fuckin word he says".
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 20:48:56 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:bojbui98ll4qdl1i5l2551cnn3ecqmt6td@4ax.com...
More to the point, if you do have specific information or experience that >>> has not come from the evidence in court which leads you to believe that a >>> witness may be lying (or otherwise giving incorrect information[1]), then >>> the appropriate course of action is not to keep that to yourself until you >>> get into the jury room, but to inform the judge of your suspicions.
Surely its the role of the Court to decide whether a witness is telling the >>truth of not by the process of examination and cross-examination ?
Its simply not the role of jurors or anyone else for that matter to share >>their "beliefs" with the judge, which at that stage will be totally beyond >>challenge, as to whether a witness is telling the truth or not.
Again, I can only repeat my own experience, which is that the judge told us that we should not hesitate to ask him any questions if we were unclear on a matter, or to pass on any concerns we may have. In one of the two trials I was on, I did actually make a written request for clarification on a point
of law.
On 5 Mar 2024 at 08:46:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 04/03/2024 15:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
With respect, I think the above is almost completely wrong. True you should >>> not bring specialist knowledge of people, organisations or forensic science.
But ordinary experience of life, who may be lying and why, who is credible and
why, this is exactly the weighing of evidence that jurors should do. You >>> cannot "weigh" conflicting evidence by a mathematical process!
Of course, you can, any weighing, ordering comparison, is a mathematical
model. Perhaps not a good one, but mathematical models don't need to be
good, they just need to be better than nothing.
You will get legal professionals tell you that you cannot use maths,
because they are mathematically illiterate. It undermines their
authority. They don't want technology disrupting their gravy train.
Decision-making systems can be modelled, AI is built upon mathematical
models. Even a basic understanding of maths helps, things like
probability theory, statistics, Bayesian inference are useful.
Not using "life experience" is like an AI throwing away its training,
like Bayesian inference throwing away its priors. It is just nonsense.
Of course you *could* use a mathematical model if you had any useful objective
measures of the likelihood of what a witness says being the truth. But we don't so you can't.
In fact were the juror to have actual proof that a *crucial* witness
was lying, then quite possibly they should seek to recuse themselves
from that case.
The jury should decide whom they believe based on the performance of the witness in the witness box, the words used, the facial expressions, the response to cross examination (confident or hesitant or changing his/her mind) and how that fits the facts of the case from other witnesses.
Not "he's a copper from that police station that was on the news last
year, we shouldn't believe a fuckin word he says".
There have been some recent decisions from jury trials which I find "concerning", specifically those connected to the prosecution of
protestors, (be those people responsible for pulling down a statue and dumping it in a nearby body of water, or smashing windows at a large
banking organisation).
Similarly, it appears that some called to sit on juries may be
unsuited to the task. (For example, anyone that believes that 'the
police are corrupt liars' and will therefore exclude all evidence
adduced by the police from their deliberations ought not to be
considered for jury duty, IMHO.
On 03/03/2024 19:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
But aren't you in exactly the same position? You're proposing a system which >> is different, without explaining what problem you're actually trying to
solve. The current system has the advantage of being tried and tested, not >> just in the UK but in many countries around the world. That alone is a
significant point in its favour.
There have been some recent decisions from jury trials which I find >"concerning", specifically those connected to the prosecution of
protestors, (be those people responsible for pulling down a statue and >dumping it in a nearby body of water, or smashing windows at a large
banking organisation). Similarly, it appears that some called to sit on >juries may be unsuited to the task. (For example, anyone that believes
that 'the police are corrupt liars' and will therefore exclude all
evidence adduced by the police from their deliberations ought not to be >considered for jury duty, IMHO. And in the name of balance, ditto for
those that think "They wouldn't be here in court if they hadn't done
it." And I would extend those comments to all of those that display
similar deep seated prejudices which will affect their deliberations to
the extent that they are unlikely to come to a reasonable decision based
only on the evidence adduced in court.
Sadly, it is possible that when we've excluded people of this nature
from the pool of available jurors, there may not be enough left to
perform the task.
In addition to the above, and most unfortunately IMO, the world is a far
more divided and aggressive place than it has ever been in the history
of jury trials and it is now all but impossible to have discussions on >certain topics in mixed company. As a consequence of this some on a
jury will be convinced that those that do not agree with their
conclusions are wrong, rather than that they merely hold a different
opinion, or have weighted the evidence differently, and will see it as
their mission to bully weaker members of the jury into coming to their
way of thinking come what may. I am all in favour of persuasion and
rational discussion but jurors should not be changing their mind about
the verdict they wish to return based on the fact that they want to get
home or that they're the weakest member of the dissenting voices and if
they buckle a 10-2 majority can be achieved.
Another option would be for each juror to provide a brief concise
written explanation for their verdict which the judge reads before
accepting their verdict.
On 03/03/2024 19:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 18:38:29 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 02/03/2024 21:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:06:21 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'd be in favour of professional jurors, either full-time or
part-time,
that are screened, suitably trained, and paid a decent wage for their >>>>> service.
Isn't that essentially what magistrates do, though?
Yes. And what happens in the majority of civil trials.
So why not just have magistrates for every trial?
If we had enough to go around, (Ed: We don't!), a proposal could be made
to have three judges at every trial and dispense with juries altogether.
But we have what we have.
But aren't you in exactly the same position? You're proposing a system which >> is different, without explaining what problem you're actually trying to
solve. The current system has the advantage of being tried and tested,
not just in the UK but in many countries around the world. That alone is a >> significant point in its favour.
There have been some recent decisions from jury trials which I find "concerning", specifically those connected to the prosecution of
protestors, (be those people responsible for pulling down a statue and dumping it in a nearby body of water, or smashing windows at a large
banking organisation). Similarly, it appears that some called to sit on juries may be unsuited to the task.
(For example, anyone that believes
that 'the police are corrupt liars' and will therefore exclude all
evidence adduced by the police from their deliberations ought not to be considered for jury duty, IMHO. And in the name of balance, ditto for
those that think "They wouldn't be here in court if they hadn't done
it." And I would extend those comments to all of those that display
similar deep seated prejudices which will affect their deliberations to
the extent that they are unlikely to come to a reasonable decision based
only on the evidence adduced in court.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 11:23:04 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2024 19:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
But aren't you in exactly the same position? You're proposing a system which
is different, without explaining what problem you're actually trying to
solve. The current system has the advantage of being tried and tested, not >>> just in the UK but in many countries around the world. That alone is a
significant point in its favour.
There have been some recent decisions from jury trials which I find
"concerning", specifically those connected to the prosecution of
protestors, (be those people responsible for pulling down a statue and
dumping it in a nearby body of water, or smashing windows at a large
banking organisation). Similarly, it appears that some called to sit on
juries may be unsuited to the task. (For example, anyone that believes
that 'the police are corrupt liars' and will therefore exclude all
evidence adduced by the police from their deliberations ought not to be
considered for jury duty, IMHO. And in the name of balance, ditto for
those that think "They wouldn't be here in court if they hadn't done
it." And I would extend those comments to all of those that display
similar deep seated prejudices which will affect their deliberations to
the extent that they are unlikely to come to a reasonable decision based
only on the evidence adduced in court.
Maybe another possible route forward would be to reinstate the right of peremptory challenge, and introduce a version of the US voir dire process in selecting jurors.
Sadly, it is possible that when we've excluded people of this nature
from the pool of available jurors, there may not be enough left to
perform the task.
That is, of course, a possible consequence.
I would love to be able to share my impression of the discussions which led up to us reaching a 10-2 verdict (the fact of which itself is a matter of public record, but how we got there isn't). I would also love to hear the thoughts of other members of the jury, to see whether their impressions were the same as mine. I'd particularly like to hear the thoughts of the 2.
On 03/03/2024 21:26, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:51, Norman Wells wrote:
Good grief.
You're welcome to proffer alternative suggestions.
I haven't said I want any change.
I was addressing my comment to the Norman Wells that commented as below
in the thread "Extinction Rebellion activists who smashed HSBC windows
found not guilty of criminal damage".
That particular Norman Wells said: "The frequency with which juries are finding defendants not guilty in such cases where the evidence of
criminal activity against them is overwhelming is undermining the entire credibility and viability of the jury system."
He seems quite dissatisfied with the operation of the jury system in its current form, claiming that the verdicts of certain juries is
"undermining the entire credibility and viability of the jury system".
As regards barristers serving on juries, this was forbidden by law
until 2004 for very good reasons, some of which have been articulated
in this thread.
I have no idea why that law was changed, but the Bar Council is
clearly very uneasy with the whole idea and issues the following
advice to any barrister who is now called for jury service:
"6. If selected to serve on a jury, it is *axiomatic* [emphasis added]
that you do so as part of your duty as a private citizen. It is
neither necessary nor appropriate to conceal your profession from
other jurors, but nor is it necessary to volunteer such information
immediately. You should expect to be treated as equal members of the
jury, and should *insist* that you are not accorded any special status."
Like being the foreman perhaps?
Is being the foreperson being "accorded any special status"?
Do the Bar
Council say: "You must not volunteer nor be elected to serve as
foreperson of the jury."
If so, do you have a cite because an ordinary
reading of the above says that they should be treated as equals, which
is not something with which I have disagreed. I do not see the
foreperson as superior to other jurors
but believe it helps to have
someone skilled and experienced directing the discussions whilst doing
so neutrally. They could also ensure jurors are not bullied into
changing their mind and remind them that it is more important for each
juror to return what they consider the correct verdict rather than
returning what they consider to be a popular verdict.
In the case of Extinction Rebellion protesters, (and for example the
jury in the trial of Vicky Pryce), they could also hopefully curtail the
jury considering irrelevant information which may result in them
misleading themselves as to what the verdict should be.
"7. The most important thing for you to note is that you are sitting
on the jury as part of the tribunal of fact, and *not* in your
capacity as a barrister."
Which is exactly the opposite of what you are proposing should be the
case.
No it isn't. I've made it crystal clear that they would not be able to bring to bear on the discussion anything not presented in court,
including directions from the judge.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 11:53:57 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
In fact were the juror to have actual proof that a *crucial* witness
was lying, then quite possibly they should seek to recuse themselves
from that case.
The only way they could do that is to ask the judge permission to be
recused. And the judge will want to know why.
On 05/03/2024 14:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
I would love to be able to share my impression of the discussions which led >> up to us reaching a 10-2 verdict (the fact of which itself is a matter of
public record, but how we got there isn't). I would also love to hear the
thoughts of other members of the jury, to see whether their impressions were >> the same as mine. I'd particularly like to hear the thoughts of the 2.
Did you not listen to them in the jury room, when it mattered?
On 05/03/2024 10:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 08:46:26 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 04/03/2024 15:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
With respect, I think the above is almost completely wrong. True you should
not bring specialist knowledge of people, organisations or forensic science.
But ordinary experience of life, who may be lying and why, who is credible and
why, this is exactly the weighing of evidence that jurors should do. You >>>> cannot "weigh" conflicting evidence by a mathematical process!
Of course, you can, any weighing, ordering comparison, is a mathematical >>> model. Perhaps not a good one, but mathematical models don't need to be
good, they just need to be better than nothing.
You will get legal professionals tell you that you cannot use maths,
because they are mathematically illiterate. It undermines their
authority. They don't want technology disrupting their gravy train.
Decision-making systems can be modelled, AI is built upon mathematical
models. Even a basic understanding of maths helps, things like
probability theory, statistics, Bayesian inference are useful.
Not using "life experience" is like an AI throwing away its training,
like Bayesian inference throwing away its priors. It is just nonsense.
Of course you *could* use a mathematical model if you had any useful objective
measures of the likelihood of what a witness says being the truth. But we >> don't so you can't.
Mathematical models tend to be more statistical nowadays, they do not
require objective measures of likelihood. Nice if you have them, but in
real life decision-making we have to make do with what we have.
Subjective measures can be useful. They can still provide useful
results. Just as a jury can with the same evidence. However, the
formalism of maths will allow some pitfalls to be avoided, and hence can improve reliability.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, and what not.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:gr8euiltn8e8p5ghtemte0fol0h73pthl5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 11:53:57 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
In fact were the juror to have actual proof that a *crucial* witness
was lying, then quite possibly they should seek to recuse themselves
from that case.
The only way they could do that is to ask the judge permission to be
recused. And the judge will want to know why.
As was noted in my concluding paragraph; which no longer appears
for some reason
" Presumably this will need to be made known to the Judge, who may thereby
be required to halt proceedings altogether, and order a re-trial.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:21:53 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2024 14:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
I would love to be able to share my impression of the discussions which led >>> up to us reaching a 10-2 verdict (the fact of which itself is a matter of >>> public record, but how we got there isn't). I would also love to hear the >>> thoughts of other members of the jury, to see whether their impressions were
the same as mine. I'd particularly like to hear the thoughts of the 2.
Did you not listen to them in the jury room, when it mattered?
"Tell me you've never been involved in a feedback meeting without telling me you've never been involved in a feedback meeting".
On 05/03/2024 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:21:53 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2024 14:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
I would love to be able to share my impression of the discussions which led
up to us reaching a 10-2 verdict (the fact of which itself is a matter of >>>> public record, but how we got there isn't). I would also love to hear the >>>> thoughts of other members of the jury, to see whether their impressions were
the same as mine. I'd particularly like to hear the thoughts of the 2.
Did you not listen to them in the jury room, when it mattered?
"Tell me you've never been involved in a feedback meeting without telling me >> you've never been involved in a feedback meeting".
A trial isn't a rehearsal, it's the one and only performance. You have
to get it right there and then.
On 05/03/2024 15:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gr8euiltn8e8p5ghtemte0fol0h73pthl5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 11:53:57 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
In fact were the juror to have actual proof that a *crucial* witness
was lying, then quite possibly they should seek to recuse themselves
from that case.
The only way they could do that is to ask the judge permission to be
recused. And the judge will want to know why.
As was noted in my concluding paragraph; which no longer appears
for some reason
" Presumably this will need to be made known to the Judge, who may thereby >> be required to halt proceedings altogether, and order a re-trial.
If the judge decides that the juror is no longer able to fulfil his duties fairly, and
decides that he must leave the jury (neither of which is certain), it doesn't mean a
re-trial, just that the jury is reduced to 11.
On 05/03/2024 11:19, Simon Parker wrote:
On 03/03/2024 21:26, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:42, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:51, Norman Wells wrote:
Good grief.
You're welcome to proffer alternative suggestions.
I haven't said I want any change.
I was addressing my comment to the Norman Wells that commented as below
in the thread "Extinction Rebellion activists who smashed HSBC windows
found not guilty of criminal damage".
That particular Norman Wells said: "The frequency with which juries are
finding defendants not guilty in such cases where the evidence of
criminal activity against them is overwhelming is undermining the entire
credibility and viability of the jury system."
He seems quite dissatisfied with the operation of the jury system in its
current form, claiming that the verdicts of certain juries is
"undermining the entire credibility and viability of the jury system".
As they do. But my objection isn't to the jury system as such but to
certain individuals who are essentially corrupt, being willing to bring
in perverse verdicts regardless of the facts and the law because of
their own personal beliefs.
It's a valuable democratic freedom to do that of course as it prevents
the operation of tyrannical and oppressive laws, but it really has to be
used sparingly and only in the most egregious cases, or it will be taken
away by even more repressive laws and practices such as those you are proposing.
On 05/03/2024 13:07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-05, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
There have been some recent decisions from jury trials which I find
"concerning", specifically those connected to the prosecution of
protestors, (be those people responsible for pulling down a statue and
dumping it in a nearby body of water, or smashing windows at a large
banking organisation).
"Encouraging". The word you're looking for isn't "concerning"
- it's "encouraging". I'm not sure it's juries you have a problem
with so much as justice in general.
You are very much mistaken, on both counts.
Similarly, it appears that some called to sit on juries may be
unsuited to the task. (For example, anyone that believes that 'the
police are corrupt liars' and will therefore exclude all evidence
adduced by the police from their deliberations ought not to be
considered for jury duty, IMHO.
Again you seem to have made a slight typing error. It's the people
who *don't* think that who should be excluded from jury duty. It's
obvious really - it's the people who *are* delusional who should be
excluded, not the people who are not.
The hatchet job you have done on the paragraph from which you have
quoted the above text does you no credit at all, IMO.
On 2024-03-06, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2024 13:07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-05, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
There have been some recent decisions from jury trials which I find
"concerning", specifically those connected to the prosecution of
protestors, (be those people responsible for pulling down a statue and >>>> dumping it in a nearby body of water, or smashing windows at a large
banking organisation).
"Encouraging". The word you're looking for isn't "concerning"
- it's "encouraging". I'm not sure it's juries you have a problem
with so much as justice in general.
You are very much mistaken, on both counts.
It would appear we must "agree to disagree" on that point. But I'm
entirely satisfied that the side I am on is the correct one.
On 05/03/2024 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:23, Simon Parker wrote:
On 03/03/2024 19:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
So why not just have magistrates for every trial?
If we had enough to go around, (Ed: We don't!), a proposal could be
made to have three judges at every trial and dispense with juries
altogether.
Why not twelve? Is it that they might disagree with one another and
have to come to a unanimous consensus which they might find difficult
and distressing?
If we don't have enough judges to have 3 serving in place of a jury,
what makes you think we would have enough judge to have 12 of them?
Additionally, you may not be aware but there has been talk on reducing
the size of jury down from 12. It hasn't happened each time it has been raised, but it keeps being raised.
Three judges ensures a majority verdict in all cases, but also allows
the potential for a dissenting opinion where relevant.
At least they're not all middle class, public school educated,
privileged, elderly, white males, like the vast majority of judges, of
whom you think three would be a good idea.
A less worse idea.
(For example, anyone that believes that 'the police are corrupt
liars' and will therefore exclude all evidence adduced by the police
from their deliberations ought not to be considered for jury duty,
IMHO. And in the name of balance, ditto for those that think "They
wouldn't be here in court if they hadn't done it." And I would
extend those comments to all of those that display similar deep
seated prejudices which will affect their deliberations to the extent
that they are unlikely to come to a reasonable decision based only on
the evidence adduced in court.
And of course you'd be the judge of that, wouldn't you?
I don't know why you think that would be the case.
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper and readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding from
jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and Mathematics.
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
Sadly, it is possible that when we've excluded people of this nature
from the pool of available jurors, there may not be enough left to
perform the task.
That is, of course, a possible consequence.
There's been talk of reducing the size of juries to try and clear the
backlog but every time it is raised it gets batted away.
Another option would be for each juror to provide a brief concise
written explanation for their verdict which the judge reads before
accepting their verdict.
I suspect that would be beyond the capabilities of many jurors.
"Coz they dunnit, innit, gov'nor", or substance thereof. :-)
On 06/03/2024 12:00, Simon Parker wrote:
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper and
readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding from
jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and Mathematics.
Is that any proof of competence?
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
I don't think there's any test that could prove such competence. Even
judges will disagree with one another, yet they'd (presumably) pass.
Sadly, it is possible that when we've excluded people of this nature
from the pool of available jurors, there may not be enough left to
perform the task.
That is, of course, a possible consequence.
There's been talk of reducing the size of juries to try and clear the
backlog but every time it is raised it gets batted away.
I've never seen unavailability of twelve good men and true put as a
reason for the backlog. That's the least of any problems.
Another option would be for each juror to provide a brief concise
written explanation for their verdict which the judge reads before
accepting their verdict.
I suspect that would be beyond the capabilities of many jurors.
"Coz they dunnit, innit, gov'nor", or substance thereof. :-)
Takes one to know one as they say. He may therefore be more reliable
than all the others.
On 05/03/2024 14:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
Maybe another possible route forward would be to reinstate the right of
peremptory challenge, and introduce a version of the US voir dire process in >> selecting jurors.
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper and >readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding from
jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and Mathematics.
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
Another option would be for each juror to provide a brief concise
written explanation for their verdict which the judge reads before
accepting their verdict.
I suspect that would be beyond the capabilities of many jurors.
"Coz they dunnit, innit, gov'nor", or substance thereof. :-)
On 04/03/2024 14:28, JNugent wrote:
I was out of the country when the series started and have only heard
about it within the last five or six days.
Isn't it just more reality TV? It sounds a bit like "Gogglebox"
(something else I am not remotely tempted to waste time on).
Maybe you should watch it on catch-up. Or read the various interesting articles about it, in the press.
It's an experiment to test the reliability of juries and their
deliberations and their verdicts. A flawed experiment but still worthwhile.
Anything stated here in ULM is nothing more than the musings of an insignificant group
of people on a quiet, forgotten and now increasingly abandoned corner of the Internet.
On 05/03/2024 14:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 11:23:04 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
There have been some recent decisions from jury trials which I find
"concerning", specifically those connected to the prosecution of
protestors, (be those people responsible for pulling down a statue and
dumping it in a nearby body of water, or smashing windows at a large
banking organisation). Similarly, it appears that some called to sit on >>> juries may be unsuited to the task. (For example, anyone that believes >>> that 'the police are corrupt liars' and will therefore exclude all
evidence adduced by the police from their deliberations ought not to be
considered for jury duty, IMHO. And in the name of balance, ditto for
those that think "They wouldn't be here in court if they hadn't done
it." And I would extend those comments to all of those that display
similar deep seated prejudices which will affect their deliberations to
the extent that they are unlikely to come to a reasonable decision based >>> only on the evidence adduced in court.
Maybe another possible route forward would be to reinstate the right of
peremptory challenge, and introduce a version of the US voir dire
process in
selecting jurors.
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper and readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding from
jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and Mathematics.
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
On 06/03/2024 12:00, Simon Parker wrote:
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper and
readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding from
jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and Mathematics.
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
Maybe anyone who wants to serve on a jury should be excluded.
On 2024-03-07, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/03/2024 12:00, Simon Parker wrote:
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper and >>> readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding from >>> jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and Mathematics. >>>
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
Maybe anyone who wants to serve on a jury should be excluded.
"I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members." ---Groucho Marx
On 08/03/2024 01:12 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/03/2024 12:00, Simon Parker wrote:
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper and >>>> readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding from >>>> jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and Mathematics. >>>>
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
Maybe anyone who wants to serve on a jury should be excluded.
"I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its
members." ---Groucho Marx
I am filled with regret that I have never been asked to serve on a jury.
Elsewhere in this thread, comments have been made about a potential shortage of jurors. But I think that could be solved quite simply, just by increasing the probability of being called up.
On 08/03/2024 01:12 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/03/2024 12:00, Simon Parker wrote:
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch paper
and
readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering excluding
from
jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C" or
above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless of the
grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and
Mathematics.
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure that
they are competent.
Maybe anyone who wants to serve on a jury should be excluded.
"I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its
members." ---Groucho Marx
I am filled with regret that I have never been asked to serve on a jury.
On 08/03/2024 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:12 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/03/2024 12:00, Simon Parker wrote:
Perhaps as a starting point, (prepares to light the blue touch
paper and
readies himself to run...), it would be worth considering
excluding from
jury service anybody that hasn't attained a grade 4 or above ("C"
or above in 'old money'), considered a "Standard Pass" regardless
of the grading system in use at the time, in both GCSE English and
Mathematics.
Any jurors called that wish to serve despite not having these
qualifications could sit a small test prior to serving to ensure
that they are competent.
Maybe anyone who wants to serve on a jury should be excluded.
"I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of
its members." ---Groucho Marx
I am filled with regret that I have never been asked to serve on a
jury.
Me too. As a retired person I would have the time and the enthusiasm.
Perhaps the belief is that jurors must come from a wide spectrum of
society and include those who can't easily spare the time and don't
give a shit about whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 45:03:57 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,231 |