The jury

[NervyWegovy]

Anyone watching this? Just starting the second episode and whilst flawed I find it very interesting how people interact within the jury

Why are so many people saying the conviction was reduced to manslaughter when it wasn't?

Compared to the first series when the man left the room to get a weapon after strangling his partner (who somehow got manslaughter) this can't even be proven! I guess he is unlikely to ever ask for a retrial so he gets to win 10 years off a murder charge while she has to serve longer as a murderess seemingly because she is female and the jury don't like them being violent against their aggressors.

"murderess seemingly because she is female and the jury don't like them being violent against their aggressors".

Except after multiple court cases and appeals the judges found she was usually the aggressor and was a violent drunk who has shown no remorse ( with convictions against previous partners) but carry on victim blaming by all means.

I was comparing it to what we saw of series 1, I am not looking into who the real people were because that's not what they are showing us about how they came to the decisions. I just find it interesting how the jury treat men and women differently and what is said about their relationships in the jury room.

There wss a lot of minimising from some members of the jury
The pink haired lady was determined to aquit her
And the chef wanted to treat her as a child!
I can't imagine they would have been the same if the Sex,s had been reversed
But it just goes to show we all have our own prejudices
Some of them were not looking at the facts of the case and bringing emotions in to it.

All this programme showed is that the jury system is flawed. A verdict depends on 12 individual people who all have their own histories.

One jury set concluded murder and another concluded manslaughter.

The jury system, while not perfect, is much better in reality than the UK version of this programme suggests. It's still flawed, but alternatives like an all judge panel I believe would be worse.

The Judge should have been shown giving a detailed summing up of the evidence and clear instructions to the jury. For example he should have explained the very specific grounds they might convict the accused of manslaughter rather than murder.

These grounds would NOT include using it as a handy compromise if the jury is split between murder and acquittal!

Plus, it is usually required that the jury waits until after the Judge's summing up & instructions before discussing the evidence amongst themselves. And the full jury must be present in these discussions, there can be no private chats in small groups!

I believe that the current UK jury system would greatly benefit from adding professional facilitators. A facilitator would join the jury only once it has retired to reach a verdict. He/she would not be able to offer any opinions, but would help with the practical process of how to reach a consensus.

For example, if the jury are unsure on a point of law, the facilitator can remind them that they can put written Qs to the judge. Or the facilitator could suggest everyone reads the Judge's instructions again if they appear to be ignoring them or getting lost in the weeds!

Such a job would be fascinating. And I'm sure it would make deliberations shorter and be less likely to result in a hung jury. So could save money and court time.

The pink haired woman was completely useless. She wasn't listening to any of the evidence that contradicted her pre conceived ideas. She may as well have not bothered turning up after the first 10 minutes.

I would love to do something like this. I used to work at the Magistrates court and there used to be a job that was a similar role, advising magistrates. They bloody changed the rules and got rid of it just as I was about to start the training!

I’ve just watched both series and found it fascinating and disturbing in equal measure.
I thought the first one should have been murder.
I think a lot more excuses were giving by this tv jury allowing a man to be violet than a woman.
In the first case, he admitted strangling his wife to the point where she was changing colour. He then admitted leaving the house, never mind going back in in the first place to what he called an extremely violent situation, walked down the garden into his workshop and returned to bash his wife’s head in with a 1.5kg hammer not once but 3 times.
I thought he was manipulative and had selective memory. Very convenient that he remembered the parts which an eyewitness saw therefore he couldn’t really deny them. The fact that he went back into the violent situation, strangled his wife, left the house, returned and continued the assault with extreme force ment I would have had to say murder. In no way was that self defence.
Compared to the second case where the victim was shown on cctv being violent to the accused. He was also violent to the mother if his children and random strangers. Yet some if the jury passed that off as ‘typical behaviour.’
Yet when the accused stabbed the victim once with a weapon which was to hand, they were stating how violent she was!
I think women are held to much higher standards than men and this is the proof.
I know the show is edited, but there was an undercurrent of slagging off the female victim whereas excuses were made for the male victim in the second programme.
I think a lot if decision making was kit based on fact or law. Rather prejudice by the jury.

It is the court clerk who is the lawyer advising magistrates as to the law. They are still there!

I have done jury service. It is nothing like it is portrayed in this programme. The "jury" are acting like they are on reality TV because they are. The jurors I was with took the job seriously, took direction from the judge, did not discuss the case in little groups and did not make comments/faces in the jury box. So for those worried about the system, don't be.

Did you miss the part where Sophie had a long criminal record of violence herself ?and when he was dying on the floor she made no effort to let the ambulance service no just got serious his injuries were when they said the ambulance may take a,while ?
Or are just choosing to ignore them as she s a women?

Why didn't his brother call for an ambulance?

I agree with a PP who said they wondered how the “jury” were selected. I hope to god that “real” jurors aren’t as unwilling to listen to actual facts. One of them even said “we got no help”, well what about the judges deliberations, were they even listening to him?!

Plus people who volunteer to go on a TV show probably are not very representative of the general Uk population.

I wondered why that wasn't mentioned. If he carried him in, he'd have seen the bleeding.

Yes, the fact they know they're being filmed probably makes for a skewed portrayal of what actually happens. Also, they're selected and/or applied for a tv show.

There really isn't a better option for determining guilt. I believe in the jury system, though I know they can't get it right 100% of the time.

Have you watched the series of Scottish trials on BBC, and the stand alone one on channel 4 called The Push? It seems far more representative of actual trials. Like you say, there's no shenanigans from the jury during the giving of evidence.

This lot are behaving like secondary school children with their over expressive face pulling.

Yes, I've watched those and very much enjoyed them.

Thanks for your post, very helpful. One question and apologies if it seems flippant, but did you get the food as well?

No food but you do get expenses so you can go out or there was an on site canteen.

God. Blue suit is thick as

I was also wondering why the brother of the victim didn’t ring for an ambulance.

This programme is actually dangerous. It could lead people to stop believing in our justice system based on a reality tv programme. I don't even know why I'm watching

Did anyone watch the Channel 5 ‘jury’ programme last night about Prince Andrew?