Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[admin]

Following discussion on other threads, it seemed like a good idea to start a topic where suggestions on how to improve the jury system could be discussed. In many cases we are left wondering just how exactly the jury reached the verdict they did given the evidence presented but there is no realistic way to find out. That is unless jurors come forward of their own free will.

[nugnug]

in a murder case a verdict should really have to be unanimous.

[admin]

I'm not sure we could ever realistically expect to eliminate majority verdicts but obviously with the most serious of offences such as murder you really do want the jury to be sure.

At least for most of the UK, a majority verdict means at worst 10-2 but I think in all jury trials in Scotland something really does need to be done about the ability for a jury to convict on an 8-7 majority. It's only a scratch over 50:50 and if that's not reasonable doubt then what is?

[nugnug]

when i look at the vast majority of convictions that are considered most have been majority verdicts

[admin]

I suppose that really comes down to what can be accepted as beyond reasonable doubt. I certainly wouldn't accept 8-7 as being beyond reasonable doubt and in something as serious as murder where a guilty verdict will take away not just one life but those of their families as well if it's wrong is 11-1 sure enough, or 10-2?

Perhaps its an area where anonymous explanations of how each members verdict was reached would be useful.

[Toth]

Verdict upon special interrogatories might be a compromise system wherein specific witnesses and contentions must be commented upon.

Here in the USA we have Ryan Ferguson doing six years of a forty year sentence simply because someone else dreamed that he had committed a murder despite an utter lack of forensic evidence that a slightly built 18 year old had attacked a great big hulking ex-football player.

What would the Luke Mitchell verdict have been if the jurors had been forced to evaluate and compare the various items of evidence? We the jury find that Urine, post-crime Tatoos and imaginary links to an unheard of Hollywood murder trump his having been observed as calm, cool and collected while sitting on a fence at the time of the murder? We the jury find that the tee shirt was contaminated in a laundry hamper?

[danger mouse]

several years ago a member of my family was on jury service and he was the only 1 who took is seriously.It was a rape case and 1 jury member said she believed he had done it because he is a man and all men are capable of rape.My family member said to rest of them "if we convict this man it has to be on the evidence not just comments like this".In the end he was cleared as 2 other jury members didnt want to come the next day so they went with the majority.Anyone on a jury should be answerable and not just get away with having someones life in their hands and not even bother themselves with the lives ruined by their neglet.There must be a way to get this right.

[Toth]

America used to have Blue Ribbon Jury panels from time to time. These were wealthy well-educated people able to devote substantial time and energy to a case. We no longer allow such a jury.

[wichfinder]

all jurys should have to read the daily mail then they would no the truth.

[admin]

Hi wichfinder, welcome to the forum 

I've heard the comments section of the Daily Record has become quite enlightening too 

On a more serious note, perhaps a translation of expressions used by expert witnesses and what they actually mean would be helpful for those cases where they are not properly questioned/asked to explain in layman's terms.

Is consistent with - the evidence supports the idea but doesn't necessarily mean.
Could be considered - it's possible but there's no real definitive evidence.
1 in a billion - a statistical evaluation of probability applied, often to DNA results which contradicts the 20 ten point duplicate profiles found in a database of just 65000

You know, that sort of thing

[wichfinder]

well i think makeing them read the daily mails a better idea after all it is the gospel truth as handed down to us by our lord Jesus Christ himself.

[Sandra Lean]

Hi wichfinder. Nice, as always, to have your unique and interesting perspective.

What dangermouse said about jurors considering the ramifications of their role - it seems almost inconceivable, given the apparent disregard already present in jurors, that judges tell them specifically that they are not to concern themselves with the consequences of their verdict.

Whilst it's supposed to be a two-way instruction (you mustn't worry that the victim's family will be upset if you acquit, as well as, you mustn't worry what will happen to the accused if you convict,)  it raises two issues - firstly, in our victim-centred culture, I'd say it is unrealisitic to think jurors will not take the victim's families feelings into account. Secondly, it simply does not address the issue of the consequences of convicting someone who may be innocent.

The perception that such convictions can easily be remedied on appeal (a common perception, although completely wrong!!) suggests that, rather than upset the victim's family, if the jury is not convinced of guilt, jurors will convict, believing the appeals mechanism to be a "safety net" if they get it wrong.

I honestly don't know what the answer is.

[nugnug]

well a lot of the cases we are disscusing should never really have got to a jury in the first place.

i wonder weather its really jurys that really need sorting or judges and proscuters.

[admin]

Well that's where I have an issue with the idea that juries should be dispensed with, whatever they were replaced with while perhaps being more accountable would in essence be employees of the justice system itself.

[nugnug]

well northern Ireland got rid of jury's i don't think anyone would argue ulster was bastion fairness and justice.