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?

I suppose fewer people want to do it now @Smartsub . I bump into the solicitor I did my Criminal seat with occasionally- he can’t get a decent junior solicitor.

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

On the trial I was on there was essentially no guidance and as far as the chairwoman was concerned we only had to think he may have done it (criminal case).

A friend sat on a jury and was pretty horrified by some of the reasoning

Reasoning from our case - they wouldn't have arrested him if he hadn't done it, he looks the type. The trial went on for over a week but the decision had been made by first recess.

In the other court there was a trial that had been on for weeks, highly technical financial shenanigans apparently. I think for some trials a random jury may not actually understand the evidence.

I'd generally go with the view guilty - jury (turn up looking smart), innocent - judge.

Juries take their role incredibly seriously. It's quite usual for them to convict on some counts but acquit on others which shows a real weighing of the evidence. I'm quite a fan of juries.

The only possible area for reform is I think in rape and serious sexual offences. I feel that juries can be too swayed by the myths and stereotypes around behaviours (woman has been drinking, multiple partners, explicit stuff on phones etc) in a way that a judge would not. I don't know whether it would be any better with a judge but we have to improve the conviction rates for those 'acquaintance' rape cases where people just don't seem to understand consent

I was a juror in a sexual assault case. One of the women on the jury came out with "My friend was also sexually assaulted and nobody believed her. I believe any woman who says she's been assaulted is telling the truth" .

We also lost one of the jurors on the second day when it became apparent she knew the grandmother of the complainant. Luckily the judge allowed us to continue with 11.

I think there are massive problems with juries. Firstly expecting people with no training and varying levels of intelligence to understand complex points of law is a problem.

The second big issue is there is no scrutiny of their decisions. Because what is said in the jury room can't be discussed afterwards then no one can look at how and why their decisions are made. It really is a lottery.

YANBU. I was recently on jury duty and some of the other jurors had a very warped sense of justice! Some of them were strange, unpleasant people.

Also, the system is incredibly inefficient - my experience was that 18 jurors sat in a room for a week without being called for a trial. They claimed for food, travel, loss of earnings, childcare - costing the tax payer hundreds.

Their time was wasted - some of them were essential workers such as teachers (so they still got paid PLUS the supply teacher was paid!). It’s a terrible system.

The judge directs the jury

Reasoning from our case - they wouldn't have arrested him if he hadn't done it, he looks the type.

Were you on with me?! Because that's the kind of thing people were coming out with when I was in a jury. I was absolutely horrified, and if I was innocent of something I would NEVER want to be tried by a jury after that experience.

A jury is not a mix of people. Pretty much any professional (or anyone with the brains to know the excuses to use) can get out of it. So don't expect even the average intelligence overall to be reflected in a jury.

The judge does not tell a jury what verdict they should come up with. When I was on a jury, the judge's summing up was of no help in that regard at all.

Why do you think a judge would be fairer?

I didn’t have the same experience as some of these posts. We did have a mix of people including higher earning professionals

I didn’t find anyone particularly strange or unpleasant either, just different backgrounds

Agree with above posts. What is the alternative that you are suggesting? It's not great, but I can't think of anything better.

Or simply a man.

Oh served on a jury and was shocked at just how many people were willing to swing their verdict just because they did not want to come and sit and discuss for another a day.

Yes, that's the other issue, the vast majority just don't want to be there.

Oscar Pistorius first trial was judge only. And look what happened with that.

I would rather be tried by someone with a modicum of intelligence, who had actually understood the evidence (or lack of) put in front of them in court.

I cannot express just how poor the comprehension was of many on my jury. It really bothers me even now, many years later. It was a horrible experience which had affected how I now see the justice system.

@saraclara do you think then maybe a jury of judges is the fairest way? I just think 1 person holds the same risks if they're biased in some way, even if it's unconscious

What kind of case did you have?

I feel strongly in favour of jury trials after my experience. Not that we had to be experts but that the judge’s notes and route to verdict was very good and aided the decision.

I think on any complex fraud or computer crime then a jury of experts would be far better than just a jury of randoms.

Even a jury of magistrates would be better. They have at least volunteered and had training.

I don’t know what the alternative is, but I do find it a strange concept that someone could end up in prison for a long time basically based on how 12 people feel that day.

The ideal would be that decisions are made 100% based on evidence by a person, or group of people, that 100% understand the evidence and the law. But that would never be possible because:

-The same few people would be making the decisions in every case
-Personal bias/experience will always play a part, no matter who it is
-Evidence doesn’t always prove one side or the other completely, so opinion ultimately ends up being the deciding factor

I'd rather be judged by 12 peoples consciences than one persons interpretation of "the law".

That said, it's worth remembering that many things we take for granted were illegal at one time with a lot of dim people who think "it's the law* so I had no choice but to sentence them to death" (as cunning old fury said ...)

*Except speeding. And parking. Those aren't even proper laws ...

My gripe about the jury system is how it's done on the cheap. Hence the lack of people in 100K pa jobs sitting on a jury.

I was on a jury for a rape case. I wanted to convict, however it really does just come down to he said/she said and our chairperson was very hot on the 'reasonable doubt' aspect. I think if we'd had a different chair and people had just voted how they felt the verdict would have been guilty.

But people voting 'how they feel' is the whole problem with juries!

How people "feel" basically means what their person biases and preducices are. Thank God for reasonable doubt.