Do we need to overhaul the jury system?

[HollyBerryBush]

Just reading this mornings papers online regarding the Vicky Price case having to be retried because the jury couldnt reach a majority verdict. Largely because they didnt understand what was going on.

The Judge has commented that there was a fundamental deficit in understanding. They couldnt even decide and had to ask the judge what 'reasonable doubt' meant

Notwithstanding a retrial is going to cost the tax payer millions.

Anecdotally - my mate was on a jury at Belmarsh some years ago. All very Tony Hancock sketch, Friday afternoon, they decided on a quick conviction rather than have to come back on Monday because the defendant lived on a notorious estate, therefore if he wasn't guilty of that offence, he was probably guilty of something else he hadn't been caught for .

Conversely another mate was on a jury up at Southwark. The defendants wife played bingo with my mates mum. She returned a not guilty verdict on that one on the grounds her mum liked the lady

I do realise that the jury system is probably the best model the world has for a fair and equitable trial, being jusged by your peers etc - but it's just not infallable is it?

I think professional jurors would be the way forward!

I not sure the whole jury was thick - but at least one person seemed to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely and because the rest of the jury weren't able to persuade them to stick to the facts of the case they ended up escalating questions to the judge. Which is presumably the right thing to do.

I am worried that juries in future will choose to muddle through without asking for expert advice, because they are worried about being seen to be thick.

I think the judge was being a bit of an arrogant tit. Just because the answers were obvious to him doesn't mean he has to throw all the toys out of the pram. I am currently a law student and I've seen fellow students struggling with some of those questions. Thankfully our tutors have more patience and take the time to explain.

I was only called once about 10 years ago but they cancelled it a couple of days before. It was the Old Bailey and I would have liked to have done it. My manager at the time said that he had a lot of staff who had been called but none had ever actually sat as it was always cancelled.

I hoped to be called again but never have been in 30 years or so of being on the electoral roll. Both my mum and sister did it in London. My sister's jury decided to find a guy not guilty because of the arrogant policeman giving evidence. My mum was really upset as her jury (with her and someone else dissenting) found a vulnerable man guilty of handling stolen goods - she thought most of the jury very very thick. When they came out, his supporters including his social worker who had given evidence were screaming abuse at them - awful.

Is it easy to not do it if your job is professional or demanding, what about SAHM's without support? Surely a lot of intelligent people who could sit are not able to for whatever reason?

Jurors should be examined beforehand to ensure they understand exactly what's expected up them and are intelligent enough to weigh up the evidence for a just decision. That is at the very least essential for a fair trial.

Having a certain IQ and qualifications won't guarantee that people will follow the guidelines that are set down: judging solely on the evidence, not guessing, not speculating. It doesn't even guarantee that they'll pay attention. People will ignore the rules if they want to. One of the smartest jurors I met while I was serving was a retired manual labourer who I imagine had very few qualifications at all, but he was one of the most insistent that we stick to the facts. I'd much prefer people like him to the arrogant ones who think they can go off and say and think what they like based on the ideas they made up in their head.

I think making up exams or standards that you have to meet before you're allowed to be a juror is a dangerous road to go down. It won't force out arrogance or laziness or speculation.

Surely professional jurors would be far too susceptible to threats and bribes etc.

I did jury service about 15 years ago. was honestly shocked by some of the jurors. From total disinterest from some,to others wanting to find people guilty 'because they looked a bit shifty'
I really think there needs to be some way to filter people out if they are not capable. There were people on that jury who could barely string a sentence together and really had no idea what was going on and others who were homophobic, mysogynistic and like a poster child for DM readers.
I really wouldnt want people like that deciding my fate.

I've never been called, I'd love to be though.

Surely the problem in this case was the level of pre-trial publicity, hence the question about evidence that had not been presented in court. Also having on defendant plead guilty at the start must muddy the waters.
I thought it was interesting that in South Africa they have no juries.

Thought I would share this
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/are-we-the-jury-jury-asks-judge-2013022160487

The judge's comments were harsh. Some of the questions were reasonable (for example the one about reasonable doubt - there has been a lot of discussion over the years as to what this means). Some of them were not and I suspect were not intended to be (like the one about whether they could find something of which there was no evidence which has a touch of the about it (that has to be the result of one thick juror wanting to base his findings on something he had heard from his nephew's dog's mother and the others not being able to talk him out of it and saying "well let's put this to bed by asking the judge, shall we?"))

I've served on a jury and I can say from experience that you will always get some idiot. But that is why a jury is made up of 12 people and majority verdicts are accepted - the sensible majority should outweight the views of the village idiot.

Its certainly not a perfect system but I can't think if a suitable alternative.

I sat on a jury several years ago. When we retired to consider our verdict after 3 weeks of hearing evidence, one jury member declared straight out that he had decided on day 1 after hearing the charges read that the defendant was guilty and therefore hasn't paid attention to much of the evidence.

Another juror agreed that the evidence against the defendant was pretty convincing but he just looked like he wasn't capable of such horrific offences and finding him guilty would ruin his whole life and age didn't want that on her conscience.

Luckily the rest of us were able to return the verdict we thought correct based on the evidence. But it did worry me what could happen if you got a jury made up predominantly of people like those I've just described. Mercifully, law of averages says its unlikely but the Vicky Price incident proves that it can happen.

'One of the smartest jurors I met while I was serving was a retired manual labourer who I imagine had very few qualifications at all'

Exactly, CartedOff that's why an IQ-type test would be good. It's not to do with formal qualifications! But you need something to rule out people who are just fundamentally incapable of interpreting information and how the jury system works.

Agreed Abra1d. Actually there used to be a greater restrictions on who could be a juror - I think you had to be a homeowner or householder or something.

Maybe that's no longer appropriate but certainly a good command of English - both spoken and written - should be a requirement, and maybe some sort of evidence of mental capacity. Perhaps restrict it to people over 21 as well. Also let's have no more nonsense about winding up early so that some jury members could go off and pray.

When I was on a jury (Southwark in fact) many moons ago, we were given an introductory talk, in which we were told that we could ask questions of the judge. In fact we were to some extent encouraged to do so,

This lot just seem to have taken this a bit too far. I suspect there may have been one or two problematic jury members who wouldn't budge and that the Jury foreman sent the judge the questions to get things moving again - unsuccessfully as it turned out.

I think to abolish the jury system ("the lamp that shows that freedom lives", in Lord Denning's phrase) itself would be dangerous, though there are a are a number of people, in particular fans of the "Code Napoleon", who would like to. They should be resisted.

I must admit I do look at one or two people I know and just know they would convict on basis of personal prejudice.
It is a worry

The system has huge flaws, but I'm not sure that there is anything better that could be put in place.

I did jury service and because 3 of the jury were smokers, they didn't care and just voted with the majority because they knew they wouldn't be allowed out for a cigarette until we had reached a verdict.

We also had the "he looks guilty" trial by sartorial evidence.

A colleague sat on a jury who decided that someone must be guilty because he was a muslim by birth (not practice) and he had made an affirmation rather than swearing on the Quran.

Maybe if we increased the size of the jury it would lessen the risk of a bunch of idiots all being chosen as one jury?

I served on a jury and came away feeling better about the jury system.

One of the most observant jurors was a young man of 19 who wore a hoodie (and who I'd thought would be a defendant - for shame ).

They should have a basic intelligence and English comprehension tests at least before allowing people to become jurors.

I'm not sure I buy into the whole "this jury were the stupidest I've ever seen" stuff that's in the press today. This was a complicated case, over a question that's very difficult to prove - i.e. whether VP was coerced or acted of her own free will and I'm not surprised they were confused. There's a thread running in "In the News" which sets out some of the confusions fairly well.

'I suspect there may have been one or two problematic jury members who wouldn't budge and that the Jury foreman sent the judge the questions to get things moving again - unsuccessfully as it turned out.'

Yes, this sounds probable, somebloke.

Being on a jury can be really hard - my boss was on the jury for a child murder case and needed counselling afterwards. Some of the photos they had to see we're highly distressing.

The recent Harry redknapp case is a prime example of where a jury trial may not be the most suitable. Financial and tax fraud are very complicated. People can be swayed by their feelings towards a celebrity defendant or the tax man.