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?

people had just voted how they felt

So the fact that some people vote against their consciences is a thing ? Fuck that.

Amen to that.

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

It's always worth remembering that the people that hid Anne Frank were breaking the law, and the people that killed her were obeying the law. As my DM noted drily. Bad laws need to be broken, and juries need to throw them out. And the UK has had - and still has - plenty of bad laws that parliament will never change until peoples consciences kick in.

I don't know where to start...

Saraclara did you reach a unanimous verdict on your trial?

Unless you can tell me differently, I don't belive people hiding Jews in Germany had the privilege of a jury trial.

Watch spiral (on I player bbc4 about french legal system with investigating judge)
🤯

We had three options, guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a more minor offence. The only way to reach even a majority verdict was to go for the latter. I was convinced that he was guilty of the more serious offence, and when, after the verdict, his previous convictions were read out, it was clear that I was almost certainly correct, and many of my fellow jurors looked very embarrassed.

The judge was kind enough to recognise how we would all be feeling, and told us not to feel bad. But I did, and I felt hugely for the victim, who was also in court having given her evidence. I felt sick for her.

The problem with voting how you feel is it has little to do with the trial...

He's scruffy, looks like a villain
She's pretty and talks so nicely she can't be lying
He's black, they're all involved in drugs
She's got children at home you can't convict her

If you bring your feelings and prejudices into it justice goes out the window.

Oh that’s so hard I can see why you feel as you do

I felt strongly about the verdict we had it was important to me, so I can see why you felt sick for her

If you bring your feelings and prejudices into it justice goes out the window.

I think it's a mistake to confuse "justice" with the legal system. Remember wrongly imprisoned victims have to pay for their prison board and lodging - hardly a just system.

People are far more likely to be wrongly imprisoned where juries don't do their job, and make decisions based on their own biases and not the law.

As my DM noted drily. Bad laws need to be broken, and juries need to throw them out

Your DM's definition of bad laws might well be different from another person's, of course. no-one gets to cherry pick these things.

Didn't the students who damaged sone statue were found not guilty by a jury even though they clearly did it.

So juries can "vote with their feet" but I'd hope such perverse decisions are very rare.

In theory I think a jury is better but then I look at people posting on MN and I'm often amazed at what they absolutely positively know is true based on virtually nothing so I think I'd prefer a judge really.

😂

Do away with one-person juries then.

Didn't the students who damaged sone statue were found not guilty by a jury even though they clearly did it.

It's almost as if the law and its application are nuanced and complex issues that can't be divined by a bunch of dim people at a distance without all the facts, isn't it ?

It is bollocks that it's easy to get out of jury service. You may be able to defer jury service but it's not easy to get out of it altogether. And if a person is prepared to lie to try to get out of jury service, would you really want that person to sit in judgement on you or anyone else?

That jury wasn't dim. Their decision was the very essence of a perverse decision.

I think those in the know advise the opposite.

When I did jury service a few years back, the guy was clearly guilty. However we had one juror who said they she never wanted to be responsible for accidentally sending someone to prison if they were wrongly accused, so she refused a guilty verdict. In this instance, the judge allowed a majority verdict, but it was very frustrating. Oh and we also had a "let's just decide because I want to get home"...he had a day job where he was an upstanding member of the community so again, very frustrating how lightly he took it. At least the bloke on trial did end up going to jail.

Well having judges, who tend to have certain biases themselves, decide things, is not an approach without problems either.

I think there is a difference between saying, I feel like this person is a baddie, and, I feel like the law in this case is immoral in a basic way, or what is maybe more likely, that the law which is a blunt instrument isn't up to dealing with the actual situation is front of the jury.

I imagine everyone can think of a situation where applying the law, or say applying the rules, even ones that are generally good, can create a worse injustice and just isn't even in the interests of society as a whole.

DH was on the jury of a disturbing case with an elderly man who admitted to him he couldn't hear half of what was going on.