End of juries but for the most serious cases - end of a historical right?

[mids2019]

History GCSE: The Jury - BBC Teach https://share.google/8pIFUsLZqABANYA

Since the magna carta I have always thought trial by jury though not a constitutional right was something enshrined within our legal system. Is getting rid of juries for a lot of cases a good cost saving measure or an undermining of rights as citizens?

Have you met the general public? I'm not sure I'd want my fate in the hands of 12 randoms.

Juries have made some very spurious decisions in past. I have to say I agree with PP, that I’m not sure I trust my fate in the hands of most people. Especially the bias in terms of race, sex etc.

Mixed feelings. The reality is that the criminal justice system is so underfunded that there need to be tough choices made or it will grind to a halt. I get the desire for 12 people to sit on a gbh, murder or rape trial. But for complex fraud I think it’s madness. Interested to see the full proposals.

I think I'd need to see the details because they're not saying they're going to get rid of them altogether.

But, regardless, I'm disappointed in this administration. Though I know they're facing tough decisions.

I did jury service and served on 2 trials. At least 60% of the jurors were racist old men who, in my humble opinion, were incapable of making a reasoned decision due to their outdated views. A couple of others were completely oblivious, and a few more didn't have an opinion at all so voted with the majority. It’s always stayed with me how ridiculous the system is.

I did jury service and served on 2 trials. At least 60% of the jurors were racist old men who, in my humble opinion, were incapable of making a reasoned decision due to their outdated views. A couple of others were completely oblivious, and a few more didn't have an opinion at all so voted with the majority. It’s always stayed with me how ridiculous the system is.

The government are doing this to save money. Given the number of lawyers in both Houses of Parliament, it seems extremely unlikely this legislation could ever be supported.

I’ve served on a jury and was horrified at the lack of critical thinking and basic listening skills of my fellow jurors. I wouldn’t want that calibre of person deciding what I was guilty of or not.

I have only dealt with juries during inquests. They were bored, sometimes asleep and asked the most random shit.

Honestly no idea what their presence added.

I served on a jury years ago. Five out of the twelve were 18 year olds. Given the type of case it was, I did wonder whether they had the life experiences to make a judgement, leaving aside the critical thinking skills in general.

Jury trial is democracy. If you don’t trust your fellow woman and man to sit in judgment why trust them in the ballot box? This right was won over hundreds of years and may be lost in months. Once rights are lost they’re rarely found.

Given how much general intelligence and critical
thinking seems to have gone out of the window in recent times, I’m starting to think that it’s not a bad thing.

I have the same experience. I was 19 years old and was not at all experienced in life or confident enough to be part of the process.

Honestly, I think it’s a sensible decision. Judges are much more likely to have the thinking skills and knowledge to decide someone’s guilt, there’s a huge backlog of cases and it would save money.
Plus long complex cases are a nightmare to find jurors for, you end up with retired people and students.

I have minimal faith that the general public who would actually be on a jury would have the intellectual ability to decide someone’s guilt and honestly I find it weird that we put people’s liberty in the hands of the general public in any event.

I don’t really trust them with voting either! I know we have to have democracy but so many people are dumber than slugs that democracy is being eroded anyway (Brexit lies anyone?)

I think given the pressures on the courts it’s inevitable that things are going this way, and it could be seen as a sensible evolution of the system. While I believe in the right to trial by jury, I think there is merit in adjusting the system. Minor crimes, that won’t attract long sentences on conviction, and technical fraud cases, lend themselves to being decided by judges.

Serious offences should always be tried by juries. Juries are less prosecution-minded in general. I also think juries on serious trials take their responsibility pretty seriously.

I have mixed feelings about this but honestly given the quality of jurors available now (that sounds so bad saying it out loud!) I think for more minor cases it would be better to have a judge only.

I think sometimes a general jury is a bad choice especially for really complex technical, scientific or statistical concepts. Juries have awarded huge payouts in civil cases on talc where the science really doesn't support the claims but a mixture of emotional reasoning, mistaking correlation for causality and perhaps pre-existing bias against Big Pharma. It also seems like some trials (such as Lucy Letby) actual scientists and pathologists cannot agree on the facts of the case yet it is considered reasonable for random lay people to make a judgement on these disputed medical facts.

I’m always thought the jury system has its place, however a competency and critical thinking test should be undertaken first.

I don’t trust them on the ballot box either. It’s probably why we’ll end up with a Reform government and why Donald Trump was elected again.

I'm in favour of jury trials in general - as said by a pp it is part of democracy. I don't think there should be any test to take part; the fact that the selection is random and the fact that there are 12 should create enough collective intelligence to reach a sound result.

But I think it's fine to restrict it so that the justice system can expedite other cases within a reasonable time limit.

...But you all think judges are some kind on angels who have no political bias.

Fools, all of you.

As for previous experience, all the stories here about thickness and racists...well, they all made judgements about you too. Perhaps you'd cast yourself as a supreme being with superb political and critical thinking.

This is the entire point of a jury. A mix of people.

Once we lose this right, we lose another rung of democracy.

It isn’t a mix of people though. Retired people and students are usually over represented because lots of working people defer, appeal to be released etc.

You can make all the judgments about me you like, but there is no place for racists on juries.

No place for racists....
Is there space for Sexists?
Is there space for LGBT plus supporters?
Gender critical supporters?
Is there space for the far right? The far left?

My point is the jury is made of all from society.

Having served on juries, I am in favor of scrapping the entire concept and starting over. Most people are simply unqualified to fairly weigh evidence and compare it to the law as written.