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?

I think it's a pretty extreme difference tbh. Germany legally murdered millions of people, its own citizens. It's a crazily bad example of a legal system to follow.

You may despise this country, many do, but to make your argument that Germany is morally, civilly, or legally superior, you should pick a time period that does not include Nazi Germany. It's just a terrible debate point. Surely it throws the whole board.

A colleague told me about a rape trial he was a juror on. They all decided the boyfriend was not guilty, because she had willingly had sex with him at other times after. I don't really see why random people are better at deciding than judges, but do think it should be a committee of at least 3.

This pretty much mirrors my experience plus the courts treat jurors abominably. I’m never doing it again.

Was it morally, civilly, or legally superior to starve millions of British citizens to death as Britain did in that time period?

No, I don't think it was. But if you're stumping for Nazi Germany, you've gone wrong in your life. And I don't think you really are either. Don't take ridiculous positions, because it undermines your entire argument.

As well you know, I'm stumping for not judging a country today based on it's actions from the past. Because if you go on the past, we'd be fucked.

We have had juries for the Witch Trials though so it is hardly infallible

Personally yes I think our common law system is superior as it happens but that doesn’t make it future proof. The whole point of the system is that is allows for easy evolution and laws get made by Parliament and followed by the judiciary and when there is a gap filled by the judiciary

juries are a cog in the system but don’t underpin it - we already have magistrates deciding change doesn’t have to be brutal.

Germany is brought up not as a system to follow but to point out juries are not a necessary part of a legal system/democracy/human rights

Someone I know had recently been on trial with a jury for murder and manslaughter. So in their case the jury trial would be maintained.

but it’s been eye opening how much of a farce it is. The judge directed the jury before they even started deliberating that the murder charge was getting taken off. Because the judge didn’t think there was enough evidence for it. I mean obviously we think that’s great but shouldn’t it be the jury who decides if there’s enough evidence or not? Cps obviously thought there was.

jury couldn’t reach a verdict not even a majority one but they deliberated for 6 hrs in total over 2 days and told the judge there was no point carrying on as it wouldn’t change. This was on a Friday afternoon and I suspect they couldn’t face coming back the following week.

but if half were so fixed in one direction and the other half fixed in the other direction after hearing the same evidence is it right it comes down to an individual’s opinion or gut feeling? Especially when there is no IQ test?

maybe an intelligent panel of 3 legal experts would be better?

but if half were so fixed in one direction and the other half fixed in the other direction after hearing the same evidence is it right it comes down to an individual’s opinion or gut feeling? Especially when there is no IQ test?

It was a similar scenario on that jury programme. Two juries heard exactly the same the court case but they came to different conclusions. And those conclusions were based on the most dominant idividual's opinion, which they had right from the start.

There’s too much getting out of jury service so it’s unfair as the pool isn’t random. There’s too many nitwits compared to the people who have managed to get out of doing it.

The judge does provide guidance about the scope of what verdict the jury can give.

So you might as well just do away with them!

Great point about instating an IQ test.... Maybe the IQ test could also be used to decide if people can vote too?

😬

I worked with a guy many years ago who had served on a jury, but the case was so complex that the judge had to throw it out. He/she decided that there was no way the average person could understand it.

Honestly, I thought I’d be outraged if this ever happened but I can’t help but think it might be an improvement now. My DD is witness in a SA case. Should have been heard last September. Postponed until next September as ‘no court time’. I can’t help but wonder if all the messing about with juries and swearing them in and to-ing and fro-ing delays things to a silly extent. I’d rather that the victim of the SA could start to have some closure and have the case heard by only a judge than have to wait another year with the perp wandering around the town so they can see them.

Another person who has had the experience of sitting on a jury 😂 After that, if I found myself on trial for something, I would only ever want a jury trial if I was very clearly guilty, but thought I might as well have a go at getting the jury to feel so sorry for me they would let me off anyway.

If it was something I wasn't guilty of, particularly if there were anything in the case that would require a degree of intelligence to understand, or god forbid a basic knowledge of statistics? Fucking no way would I want a jury.

The judge just gives the choice of decisions that can be made based on the evidence.

You think judges have a basic knowledge of statistics? I'm afraid there is a good chance you would be disappointed.

The judge can never direct a jury to convict, but the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 gives them the power to dismiss a charge if they conclude that there is not enough evidence for them to be properly convicted. Whilst the CPS should only go to court when they think there is enough evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction, sometimes they misjudge it or, more commonly, their case falls apart in court. If there really isn't enough evidence for a conviction to be safe, why risk the jury getting it wrong?

The judge directs the jury as to the law and other relevant factors they need to take into account when considering the evidence (e.g. the need to treat identification evidence with caution). It is also becoming increasingly common for the judge to provide the jury with a flowchart or similar aid, setting out the legal and factual issues they have to decide and what verdict their decisions lead to. This does not tell the jury what their decisions must be, it just helps to guide them. To take a simple example, in a rape case the guidance might be something like:

Did the defendant have penetrative sex with the complainant? If the answer is no, your verdict must be not guilty. If the answer is yes, move on to the next question.

Did the complainant consent to sex with the defendant? If the answer is yes, your verdict must be not guilty. If the answer is yes, move on to the next question.

And so on.

The judge cannot, under any circumstances, make any findings of fact, so they cannot decide whether the prosecution witnesses or the defence witnesses are telling the truth. That is entirely for the jury.

Another thought...

The proposal is that rape cases would still be heard by juries but not lesser sexual offences. That means there will be pressure on the CPS to charge men only with those lesser offences in the interests of speed, etc. After all, that is the alleged reason for this proposal. So rape convictions could go down. And then eventually we'll get the next Wayne Couzens and find they have a long history of rapes that were not taken seriously.

And I do rather wonder what the subpostmasters make of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wittering on about the need for "timely justice". Yes, that is in Magna Carta. It comes immediately after guaranteeing the right to trial by our peers.

It's a really interesting point about sexual assault as these crimes have been historically hard to get convictions for. Would you really have to look at judges for potential bias in their character or would they need additional training? Sex of the judiciary could come into play here.

How would the role of a barrister change with these things if normally those oratory is aimed at convincing lay people with limits legal experience ? Will the rhetoric be dialled down as you are less likely to sway a judge with oral flourishes and the whole court room process be more professional and business like?

A lot of the narrative around sexual crimes is wrong. The main reason that only a small proportion of reported rapes lead to a conviction for rape is not that juries are unwilling to convict. It is that most cases don't get to court, with the most common reason being that the victim withdraws from the process.

Judges are already trained in sexual violence cases and the directions to give the jury to avoid assumptions. I doubt that will be an issue. But the headline figure often reported by anti-rape campaigners (the proportion of reported rapes leading to a conviction for rape) is likely to go down. It is already too low.

This is what concerns me - judges are mostly very good on certain things but a lot of them are awful on women. Dinosaurs. I did jury service and would very much trust a jury over a single judge.

I’m in favour of this, the general British public should not be trusted to sit and pass judgement on the actions of citizens. That’s what we have trained legal representatives for, not Dave the Builder who can’t even pronounce the name of his favourite weekend curry house properly.