Jury System

[Duke 0]

I was reading an article in the paper the other day that was talking about our flawed Jury system in NZ. I haven't been able to find a link to an online version of the article but it was quite interesting, a lot of picking apart the system in general.

 

So what do you think as citizens of your respective democratic countries! Jury's around the world are fairly similar so what do you think? Should we have the fate of some people decided by their fellow *random* citizens that often have no prior knowledge of the law? Or should we have Judge-only trials. Or should we try something else completely?

 

"Justice by the masses?"

 

What are your thoughts?

[Nmenth 291]

Hard to say, the problem is that people can be corrupted, biased, mistaken, and ignorant.

No matter which way you look at it, you can't find a perfect method to bring justice.

Every case is different, and every person tried had their own reasons and scenarios behind the incidents.

I think juries are better than one judge despite the lack of common knowledge of the law, but I wouldn't disagree that it could use some reform.

[mormreed 0]

I believe that the jury system is one of the most just forms of justice (redundant much?) but really, the lawyers each have 12 challenges and unlimited challenges for cause when selecting a jury, the 12 challenges require no explanation whatsoever and can be used on anyone, also on cases where the death sentence may be used the jurors must be interviewed about their convictions or lack of on the death penalty and removed in their beliefs conflict with the possible sentence I think it's a good system, unless someone can come up with better, also I believe that all jury verdicts should be unanimous, especially in death sentence cases, some states require only 5 out of 6 or something like that, and all juries should consist of 12 people.

Edited December 22, 2008 by mormreed

[Mina Synd 0]

i agree with most of what has been said...

problem is it's a lose-lose situation: the jury who have no knowledge of law workings are just going on feelings and half cocked reasoning, but it would be a lot harder to get a whole corrupt jury unless it's a major celebrity case where everyone knows them already...

 

a judge would be able to make a more solid choice, using the full power of the law. the downside is, it's only one person to corrupt and everyone knows who it would be as opposed to a random jury.

 

so it's not really gonna work either way... what we need would be an advanced computer to take into account every little detail of the case and make a non-biased, lawful judgement. though failing that we could turn the police into Judges, ala judge dredd and 2000AD XD

 

...oh fine, failing that we could make sure that the jury has a non-bias lawyer or something there who can give them all the (known) information on the case and the implications it would have so that the jury could understand it better. basically just someone there to point out all the lawful options in a situation. then again that would make corruption even easier cos this jury-helper could be bias and swing the jury >.>

 

humans are such petty creatures aren't they?

[Luk3us 63]

I think the jury system is a pretty good system as it is. It has its downfalls sure, but I don't think other systems, like a Judge or tribunals are that much better to be fair.

[Mina Synd 0]

really we need a completely new and unique system. but i honestly have no idea how that would work... apart from the problems i previously mentioned, if you had say, a -large- scale judgement with anything upwards of 50 people... unless you are only doing that for serious crimes it would pester a lot of people. and if it's countrywide? no-one would get anything done. they'd all be at home on the tv/internet voting constantly...

 

and then you'd have the problem of that age old "the majority of any country are idiots" thing...

[Luk3us 63]

lol.. Yeah we need something new, but lol at what that is.

 

I like the idea of getting a computer to randomly determine your innocence based on numerous factors. haha

[Mina Synd 0]

well not just a computer. some kind of -super- computer, maybe a real, self-aware AI program or something... because a computer is the only thing that could judge without bias (though a self-aware true AI would have emotions, and as thus would have sympathy, anger, disgust and so on and thus bias! so maybe just a really advanced computer...)

 

but yah. can you show me -any- human alive that can make decisions unbiased from their heart or money? you could say a psychotic... yes, they have no emotions as such. at least, not in the way we understand them. they would just feel them in a different way. and do you really want someone deciding your future if they don't read emotions the same way you do?

 

eeeyaaah... there is a reason they give people anti-psychotics XD;

[Luk3us 63]

You have to have emotion when dealing with crimes. Cause if you went from a strickley logic point of view, well lol, a lot of people would be in jail. A lot of them would have been acquitted by a jury.

 

Also I was kidding about the computer randomly determining your fate too. That would be too creepy for me.

[Mina Synd 0]

yaaah... the problem is with emotions is it makes people VERY judgemental without looking at the facts. more so if there are lots of people cos you get the mob mentality going.

 

i mean let's take for example, michael jackson. the second the trial started everyone instantly wrote him off as a creepy weirdo pedo and it has become a permanent jade on his image for the rest of his life. even though nowadays if you ask people most of them will say they don't believe he did it, mob mentality makes everyone accuse him and in return causes things like comedians to poke fun at him and make people believe the rumours all the more.

 

once again, before things kick off in response the "people" mentioned in the previous paragraph are MAINLY THE MAJORITY (which as you must all know by now goes with my "the majority of any country are idiots" thing i got going on) which means it probably doesn't affect (most) of the people here (as much) XD

[comander starlin 6]

i think the problem is it is not a fair system in anyway

[Mina Synd 0]

well you have to remember, at the end of the day (unless you get a cold hard calculating computer) it's going to be an emotional human deciding the case. and as thus, they can be be bribed or blackmailed into choosing something specific, assuming they are not just naturally bias anyway...

 

so long as people are judging other people there is no such thing as a "fair" system. we just need to find the most accurate system which catches the most real criminals but lets free the most innocent ones...

[Duke 0]

I think it's probably the most *fair* system around because I mean, surely with a 9-12 (or whatever it is) majority of apparently *random* people has to be fairly accurate. The problem is that often it can be people's entire lives in the balance, and therefore we need to not be fairly accurate but wholly accurate.

 

One idea offered in the article I mentioned was a panel of judges type thing. Sort of your supreme court or tribunal idea but to replace juries, have a number of judges that decide the case. I think that's not a bad idea, but everything has it's downsides.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

problem is it's a lose-lose situation: the jury who have no knowledge of law workings are just going on feelings and half cocked reasoning, but it would be a lot harder to get a whole corrupt jury unless it's a major celebrity case where everyone knows them already...

What does a jury member need to know the laws for? That's not their necessity. The police and lawyers have to know the laws, and the lawyers are there to present evidence and based upon that, the jury decides. Nowhere in there must any member of a jury know anything about the laws. They just decide guilty or not guilty and the judge does the sentencing.

 

so long as people are judging other people there is no such thing as a "fair" system. we just need to find the most accurate system which catches the most real criminals but lets free the most innocent ones...

The current system isn't 100 percent but no system will be. Due process is the best system since it leaves the verdict in the hands of many instead of the few. Far easier to bribe a judge or 3 man council than a jury of 12.

[mormreed 0]

I like the idea of getting a computer to randomly determine your innocence based on numerous factors.

or just have it print out a 0 or 1, 0 is innocent and 1 is guilty XD

[Julbri 0]

I like our jury system

 

[Duke 0]

What does a jury member need to know the laws for? That's not their necessity. The police and lawyers have to know the laws, and the lawyers are there to present evidence and based upon that, the jury decides. Nowhere in there must any member of a jury know anything about the laws. They just decide guilty or not guilty and the judge does the sentencing.

 

You're right...but:

 

They just decide guilty or not guilty

 

...as the law dictates. They still are limited to the confines of the law as to whether the person is guilty or not guilty. Having to have certain evidence that can't be considered due to it breaching the law in some way or another. You could argue that if juries in general know more about the law that the sentencing would be more just "in the law's eyes". Jury's are supposed to make their decision on whether the person is guilty or not, to the law.

 

Err, am I making sense lol? Say you're a juror and you believe that the person is guilty just because you know he is. But if after looking over all the evidence - and the evidence is nonsubstantial to what the law dictates as acceptable to convict someone, you are legally required to vote not guilty.

 

In that sense panels of judges could be better

[Mina Synd 0]

yah. instead of 12 random civilians, 12 proper judges o.o that looks more promising. then you'd get the same voting process as a normal jury, but with the power and knowledge of a law expert o.o;