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?

In which case that should have been brought to the attention of the judge. The judge would have spoken with the juror and could have discharged him or made sure he could hear. Appalling that the other jurors did nothing.

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

I know the jury wasn't dim.The level of debate in the country was ... in fact it was sub-dim ...

So why didn't the man make anyone aware? Why didn't your DH?

You said the guy was clearly guilty so the juror who was fed up and he wanted to go home wasn't wrong. He just didn't want to waste days debating a clear cut case.

I’ve just been on the jury for a very upsetting case. I tried to get out of it and was very cross that the judge should be making this decision as he’s there anyway. At each twist or turn of the case, each angle the prosecution tried to take, one of us had direct experience. Think fostering, expulsion from school, divorce at a young age. The final element was medical - one of us happened to be a specialist in that area. Much to my great irritation I am now a complete believer in jury trials. We put a very bad man away for a very long time and thanks to the variety of experience and knowledge we had, I know we got it right.

They don't have juries in my country. As far as I understand it, most cases are dealt with by one judge but more serious ones have lay judges who appointed by municipal counties, so sort of professional jurors, as well as the main judge. Not sure how it actually works out in real life, only been involved in one criminal case (as a witness) and there was 3 people sitting up the top bench but don't know if they were all judges or what.

I know a Uni professor who (recently) tried hard but could only defer jury service for 1 year, not get out of it. My dad (a judge himself) is the only person I know who serially gets out of jury service very easily when called. No lawyer, prosecuting or defending, wants him there.

I am optimistic that I'd enjoy jury service if victim(s) not a child.

@girlmom21 my experience was that the majority of jurors I served with took differing amounts of time to come a conclusion. You can only reach a decision once there is a consensus therefore however frustrating, you have to wait. You cannot steamroller people or doubts set in.

Resurrecting this thread as it seemed apt when looking for previous threads about jury service.

I’ve recently served on a jury (Scotland so 15 jurors and simple majority for any decision). It was a difficult case, the standard of prosecution was very poor and the defence not much better. The jurors came from all walks of life and took their role very seriously. The level of discussion was okay (ish), a few rather silly questions for the judge that showed they didn’t understand the finer points of law that had been explained. It was hard to ensure that everyone got an equal voice in the discussion. We convicted the accused on a majority vote.

i am totally haunted by the experience though. I can’t help worrying about whether we got it right. The weight of responsibility is huge. The victim and perpetrator were very young and the case took a long time to get to court. I think a judge alone would have acquitted.

How have other jurors managed to deal with the uncertainty and weight of responsibility? Whatever verdict we chose would have had a seriously detrimental effect on somebody's life. I think the accused made a mistake and didn't realise what they had done. I cannot stop worrying about it atm.

Can you kindly share some examples of these laws?

Fascinating

My ex got off after trying to kill me
There were messages read out in court where he admitted to what he did and was sorry etc
He got off

He was kicked off a perpetrator programme for slamming another's guys head off a table

I was made out to be crazy and a lier

The system is a joke

His ex partner that he also tried to kill got up to testify

Funnily enough they also claimed she was crazy

I can not believe how flawed the system is

I posted on here a few times and got wonderful advice

God help any innocent person entering this system against an abuser is all I say

Having done jury service a few years ago, I was very much reassured by the system. It was emphasised to us by the judges that we must be 100% convinced of a defendant’s guilt, if we return a guilty verdict. If we had the least doubt, it must be not guilty.
Of course this will mean that a fair number of the guilty go free, but to me that’s surely better than innocent people being convicted.,

Two members of my jury panel had evidently made up their minds from the word go - before hearing any of the witnesses - that the defendant in one of our cases was guilty, but a 10/2 verdict acquitted him.

Interesting thread. I've just started reading this book, written by a woman who was a KC at the Old Bailey, she explains the system and how justice works.

Unlawful Killings: Life, Love and Murder: Trials at the Old Bailey - The instant Sunday Times bestseller amzn.eu/d/irua1Vo

On my experience in a civil trial where the judge decided, I'd say no.

When I did jury duty we had little if any guidance from the judge. Most of the deliberations focused on he was a scruffy character that looked the type and the police wouldn't had charged him if he wasn't guilty.
There was no real evidence but the chairwoman was insistent that we only need to think he may have done it because the prosecution only needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt in the case of murder.

So in principle trial by jury is good but you have to accept that you could end up with a bunch who've already made up their minds.