Is a trial by jury an effective way to administer justice?

[JuryTrial]

I can't help thinking that a bunch of 12 random jury members is a bit hit and miss when it comes to administering justice fairly. It just depends who is on the jury as to the quality of decision making.

Wouldn't you be more likely to get better, more informed and consistent outcomes if judges decided if a defendent is guilty or not instead?

if I was guilty I’d take my chances with a jury (it’s 50/50 on average). Innocent I’ll take a judge only please! It’s a totally ridiculous (and very costly system!).

YANBU!

OJ Simpson.

It's better than the alternatives

Great thread topic! I have mixed view on this. On one hand I find it a good thing that more than 1 person are weighing the evidence and deciding together but it concerns me that they aren't legally trained whereas Judges have the legal training but it is only based on 1 persons opinion and interpretation. It's a tough one.

The idea is that a jury is representative of society - so mixed backgrounds, upbringing, life experiences. With that comes different levels of empathy, understanding and insight. Combined as a group it should represent how society as a group would respond to a specific set of information or accusations. Therefore it is trial by society on a much reduced scale. Of course it's impossible to get a 'perfect' mix, but that is why jury selection is random.
If you had just judges deciding, you would be only getting the views of a very very specific sector of society - highly educated, probably white and male, with taught responses. A very different type of justice to that of a jury.

Flawed but I don't think the alternatives are better.

Potentially getting twelve Mumsnetters would worry me, I must admit.

No I think it’s better

I also agree with Keladry on mix of public v one section

😂god help you if you're a MIL or a neighbour

Something very similar to this was an essay question on my law degree many years ago. It's flawed, but the alternatives aren't necessarily any better. Juries occasionally return a verdict which isn't perhaps the right one on the evidence, but which is seen as fair, called a perverse decision. Sometimes the jurors can't agree. Sometimes jurors do things they shouldn't which put the trial in jeopardy. There's lots of guidance on how to conduct deliberations and the judge provides guidance on the law. Juries decide the facts of a case. In a criminal case they have to be sure of the facts, in a civil case it's on the balance of probabilities.

I've been on a jury and it was a very difficult, disturbing case which stayed with me for a long time. I remember wondering how on earth we were going to reach a verdict we agreed on, but the evidence presented in court and which we could refer to in the jury room really helped.

OP are you asking this question following the verdict in the Depp v Heard case?

😂

Agree flawed but better than alternatives.

Though felt much less confidence in the system after being part of a jury. Far less reasoned consideration than I would have expected, lots of ‘looks guilty to me’.

It depends on the jury. If you have some members who will agree either way just because they want to get home then its not good.

I’ve just been on a jury too, not harrowing

I found the system very interesting and well done

The route to verdict was well set, the evidence comprehensive in our case and we had to be sure and the deliberation interesting

We really did have a mix of jurors and the judge was very good but yes from one section of society

If I was innocent I would pick a judge.
if I was guilty I’d pick trial by jury

(ex-court reporter)

Depends who is on the jury, depends who is the judge.

Wouldn't fancy Judge Pickles as a victim of crime.

We were questioned on this and actually action was taken due to it

🤣🤣🤣
...or a "school mum"!
And you'd be judged quite harsh on hygeine, regardless of your crime. Many would be able to smell if you were guilty or not!

In Scotland it’s 15 jurors and 3 potential verdicts. We always have to be different 😂

This ^^

I'd hate a system without a jury. It would be so much easier for corruption and the government getting the exact result it wants.

Well as many of the comments on SM & MN prove people latch onto the most irrelevant shit as evidence. Some people are crap at separating their own experiences or feelings about a person from the facts. A friend sat on a jury and was pretty horrified by some of the reasoning - paraphrasing here “ why would this educated person be accusing the defendant of this crime if there was some truth in it” - attributing guilt on the basis that the prosecuting barrister stated it it so it must be true. Do you want to be judged by a bunch of posh white men though ? It’s a tough choice.

This is another example of where there's no good answer.

In theory of course jury trial is the best, but the quality of the jurors? It's so easy for anyone with an important job to get out of it, especially for the longer, more complex cases. Obviously a person's job isn't the only indicator that they might have some brains, but if you take out everyone who does have a good job, you're going to reduce the quality of the pool.

Mind you, I sat in on some Magistrates courts this week and the magistrates, their legal advisors and and the CPS lawyers seemed to bumble through without a clue what they were doing. Not even just one court, I witnessed this in two different courts, five cases in total. I'd have hated the fate of anyone I loved to be in their hands.

Absolutely this.

I was supposed to be quoting PP!
If guilty, I'd want a jury trial.
If innocent I'd want a judge.