Juries

Procrastastudy

I'm interested to hear people's opinions on juries (Pryce trial and all that). Not to put too fine a point on it if you walk into the CCJ they appear to be disengaged and bored. No one seems to want to be on a jury and the ones that do have other issues.

It seems to me that given the opaque system the could be doing almost anything to come up with a verdict. I'm sure the majority make up their minds within the first 15 minutes.

Surely a system of volunteer magistrates, who have to give reasons for their decisions is a better system to employ, or at the very least more scrutiny of what the jury are doing / reasons for their decisions.

Granted I might be thinking along the lines of 12 Angry Men here.

EDITED: as I never do myself any favours when starting these threads with flippant comments.

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm interested to hear people's opinions on juries (Pryce trial and all that). Not to put too fine a point on it if you walk into the CCJ they appear to be the most disengaged bunch of gubers you come across. No one wants to be on a jury and the ones that do have other issues.

It seems to me that given the opaque system the could be doing almost anything to come up with a verdict. I'm sure the majority make up their minds within the first 15 minutes.

Surely a system of volunteer magistrates, who have to give reasons for their decisions is a better system to employ, or at the very least more scrutiny of what the jury are doing / reasons for their decisions.

Magistrates are the peers of a very small group of people. It is this reason why they are not employed to act as a jury.

Most of the time, when juries are employed, they get it right.

Calling everyday folk a bunch of gubers (my husband was recently requested for jury service and is no guber btw) and saying that can't make an intelligent determination shows it's time for you to come back down to earth. Most would not make a hasty decision to ruin someone's life (and the life of the accused's family or the victim's family) and have that on their conscience.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

Magistrates are the peers of a very small group of people. It is this reason why they are not employed to act as a jury.

Most of the time, when juries are employed, they get it right.

Calling everyday folk a bunch of gubers (my husband was recently requested for jury service and is no guber btw) and saying that can't make an intelligent determination shows it's time for you to come back down to earth. Most would not make a hasty decision to ruin someone's life (and the life of the accused's family or the victim's family) and have that on their conscience.

Granted harsh and flippant - sorry. On the other hand are juries 'everyday folks' or are they a bunch of people that couldn't get out of it? Do you honestly believe that the majority of a jury when confronted with with a heroin addict don't have disposition to a certain verdict?

Given some of the questions in the Pryce trial do you think everyday folk understand what they are being asked to do?

WhatNowForUs?

I've known 2 people who have been on juries and they spent a good deal of time in getting their decision right. I would think most people would.

Procrastastudy

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

I've known 2 people who have been on juries and they spent a good deal of time in getting their decision right. I would think most people would.

Did they mention what they considered, what they found difficult. Are they even allowed to have that sort of discussion after the conclusion of the trial? What did they think of their fellow jurors?

twowheelsonly

seb65 wrote: »

Magistrates are the peers of a very small group of people. It is this reason why they are not employed to act as a jury.

Most of the time, when juries are employed, they get it right.

Calling everyday folk a bunch of gubers ......

I'd have to beg to differ there.

The most recent Stats that I saw verdicts were severely lopsided towards not-guilty verdicts.
Kerry was the worst at the time with only 20% of Circuit Court cases recording a guilty verdict. To suggest that 80% of prosecutions brought by the Gardai/DPP were 'dodgy' is ridiculous.
(Can't find the link at the moment :-( )

Procrastastudy

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I'd have to beg to differ there.

The most recent Stats that I saw verdicts were severely lopsided towards not-guilty verdicts.
Kerry was the worst at the time with only 20% of Circuit Court cases recording a guilty verdict. To suggest that 80% of prosecutions brought by the Gardai/DPP were 'dodgy' is ridiculous.
(Can't find the link at the moment :-( )

That would be the opposite of my (uninformed) preconceptions. If you find the link I'd be obliged!

valleyoftheunos

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm interested to hear people's opinions on juries (Pryce trial and all that). Not to put too fine a point on it if you walk into the CCJ they appear to be the most disengaged bunch of gubers you come across. No one wants to be on a jury and the ones that do have other issues.

It seems to me that given the opaque system the could be doing almost anything to come up with a verdict. I'm sure the majority make up their minds within the first 15 minutes.

Surely a system of volunteer magistrates, who have to give reasons for their decisions is a better system to employ, or at the very least more scrutiny of what the jury are doing / reasons for their decisions.

Seems like you might be basing this on a couple of afternoons sat in the CCJ and you might need a bit more than that to back up your assertions.

You forget as well the great care that both prosecution and defence teams put into empaneling a jury, its in neither side's interests to have a bunch of "gubers". Further, the judge has powers and responsibilities with regards the jury, I'm sure you agree they take those seriously.

I've spoken to a few people who have been jurors and they all reported that the jury all engaged with the process correctly and appropriately. Some were less enthusiastic than others but all took it seriously and no one made their mind up in the first 15 minutes.

The concept of being judged by ones peers is central to justice, the system isn't half so opaque as you make out.

twowheelsonly

This is the closest I can find at the moment - for 2006 - but isn't what I was looking for :-(

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/(WebFiles)/663BD0E4BE9598E38025731E003E7CCE/$FILE/AR%202006%20-%20EN%202%20-%20Statistics.pdf

Procrastastudy

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Seems like you might be basing this on a couple of afternoons sat in the CCJ and you might need a bit more than that to back up your assertions.

Fair comment - a bit more than a couple may be 20 or so and some press but to be fair nothing of any great academic or practical merit.

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

The concept of being judged by ones peers is central to justice, the system isn't half so opaque as you make out.

On that point I'm curious what you mean - surely a decision like Nally contradicts your assertion?

valleyoftheunos

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Granted harsh and flippant - sorry. On the other hand are juries 'everyday folks' or are they a bunch of people that couldn't get out of it? Do you honestly believe that the majority of a jury when confronted with with a heroin addict don't have disposition to a certain verdict?

Given some of the questions in the Pryce trial do you think everyday folk understand what they are being asked to do?

I don't think you are doing yourself any favours with these replies .

being an "Everyday person" as you put it does not mean you aren't able establish fact or tell the difference between liklyhood and certainty or if necessary decide if someone is lying or telling the truth.

Juries decide matters of fact, you don't need a law degree, or any other qualification for that matter, to be able to do that.

seb65

twowheelsonly wrote: »

This is the closest I can find at the moment - for 2006 - but isn't what I was looking for :-(

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/(WebFiles)/663BD0E4BE9598E38025731E003E7CCE/$FILE/AR%202006%20-%20EN%202%20-%20Statistics.pdf

Here's a question though. Say the general consensus in a County is an apathy towards rogue justice. If a jury was to produce a finding of not guilty more often than not, is that not a correct finding? The law is there to breed certainty. And shouldn't the law reflect the attitudes of the society it governs? Isn't that the purpose of judgment by one's peers?

Take the US for example and the trials of whites for violence against blacks during the civil rights movement in the deep South. The whites were hardly ever found guilty of the most serious offences they committed, by their peer-formed juries. It doesn't need to be said that this was gross injustice now, however, back in the day, those southern states were not ready to accept the enforcement of such laws. Such attitude was reflected in the findings of the jury. While I disagree with the verdicts, it gives me comfort that there is a layer of protection against the enforcement of laws the community does not agree with.

To the OP, even coming from an upper middle class background, if I was presented with a heroin addict as an accused, I would feel more sympathy for him, not less.

Duvetdays

I sat on a jury a few years back. The case was sexual assault of a child. The jury was mainly made up of men of all ages and younger women, defence seemed to try to strike out (is that the correct term) as many older women as possible as I suppose they're mothers and some might feel they'd be biased in the case. There was no gubers just ordinary working people. We didnt come to a verdict straight away in fact it was deadlocked and a mistrial was called. surprisingly the men chose to believe the little girl and the women chose to believe the man the case was purely circumstantial evidence. I actually found it scary that something could go to trial when the prosecution produced no solid evidence.

I found it extremely I want to say boring but I'm afraid I'll be called an unintelligent guber! But the seats where the most uncomfortabłe, you'd be listening away taking notes and then suddenly be kicked out as something was being discussed that the jury weren't allowed to be privy to. The room the jury deliberated to and used when we weren't allowed in the court room was absolutely freezing where you had to wear your coat and scarf.

Hopefully I'll never get called for jury duty again.

valleyoftheunos

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Fair comment - a bit more than a couple may be 20 or so and some press but to be fair nothing of any great academic or practical merit.

Its still speculation as I imagine that on none of those occasions were you in the jury room nor did you speak to any jurors.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

On that point I'm curious what you mean - surely a decision like Nally contradicts your assertion?

Juries hear evidence in open court and likewise deliver their verdict in open court. They jury room may be closed but that doesn't make the system one of cloaks and daggers.

Tom Young

OP - Why don't you tell us about the law relating to juries in general?

It seems you've taken a massive logic leap. Just give us something to think about.

Perhaps also tell us why juries are not available in certain Civil actions, and they are in others, e.g., Defamation, False Imprisonment/trespass to the person.

What's happened here, again, is a jump into the pond without checking the temperature.

Now, off you pop.

Come back when you've given us some academic/legal back-up.

usernamegoes

I do have a great amount of faith in the jury system; in fact I'd be in favor of extending its use. One thing that did trouble me, was that while juries are great finders of fact often they have to find these facts with in a strange legal question.

I mean to say that as an example, my mum asked me about self-defense and I tried to explain to her the objective and subjective elements that they jury must find as fact, I hope her difficulty understanding this two-step approach was down to my poor explanation, but I could imagine some members of a jury not fully understanding something like that and kind of taking a fully subjective or objective approach.

Now I am not sure how well this is explained to them so it might be something that juries grasp quite easily.

Procrastastudy

Tom Young wrote: »

OP - Why don't you tell us about the law relating to juries in general?

It seems you've taken a massive logic leap. Just give us something to think about.

Perhaps also tell us why juries are not available in certain Civil actions, and they are in others, e.g., Defamation, False Imprisonment/trespass to the person.

I was looking for personal opinions rather than a law lesson.

Tom Young wrote: »

What's happened here, again, is a jump into the pond without checking the temperature.

Now, off you pop.

Come back when you've given us some academic/legal back-up.

Needlessly patronising point taken but I refer you back to that I'm looking for opinions rather than someone to do my homework for me.

If you feel it's more appropriate, perhaps you could move it to the Humanities forum please?

Procrastastudy

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Juries hear evidence in open court and likewise deliver their verdict in open court. They jury room may be closed but that doesn't make the system one of cloaks and daggers.

I still don't understand how you can assert that it's not an opaque process when there are no reasons given.

valleyoftheunos

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I still don't understand how you can assert that it's not an opaque process when there are no reasons given.

What reasons do you want them to give? That the evidence of one witness was persuasive? That DNA evidence was conclusive to them? Such things will be apparent as it was all conducted in Public. They aren't balancing competing policy decisions, they aren't deciding issues in contract law, they are deciding fact based on evidence presented to them.

Nally aside juries rarely return controversial verdicts. Even in those circumstances those verdicts are readily attributable to the prosecution failing to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Opinions are all well and good but without something more behind them we may as well be down the pub discussing football. At least that way we'd all have drinks in our hands!

Edit: obviously I realise that football is a very serious business that shouldn't be taken lightly!

Tom Young

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Opinions are all well and good but without something more behind them we may as well be down the pub discussing football. At least that way we'd all have drinks in our hands!

Couldn't agree more. OP then wonders why he gets a patronising barb from me. It's practically Freeman stuff.

Procrastastudy

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Opinions are all well and good but without something more behind them we may as well be down the pub discussing football. At least that way we'd all have drinks in our hands!

I'm sorry to be cheeky about this but this forum is hardly academic central at the best of times and no one forces anyone to answer a thread. I have asked quite academic questions before and they have been largely, if not completely ignored. While I take the point that my questions can be obvious and flippant I fall back on - no one holds a gun to any ones head.

All that said I am very grateful for the replies.

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Edit: obviously I realise that football is a very serious business that shouldn't be taken lightly!

Indeed :pac:

Tom Young wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. OP then wonders why he gets a patronising barb from me. It's practically Freeman stuff.

I certainly don't wonder about getting patronising barbs from you Tom. Freemanism is openly discussed in this forum I might add.

P_1

Personally I wouldn't want to be called to serve on a jury, mainly due to anecdotal evidence of people basically being bored off their trees when called.

I guess I'd view it as a waste of my time more than anything else

valleyoftheunos

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm sorry to be cheeky about this but this forum is hardly academic central at the best of times and no one forces anyone to answer a thread. I have asked quite academic questions before and they have been largely, if not completely ignored. While I take the point that my questions can be obvious and flippant I fall back on - no one holds a gun to any ones head.

You're not being cheeky at all. It might not be academic central but the best threads here do revolve around an actual (hypothetical) legal issues rather than what you yourself pointed out was a bit of a flippant statement.

The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked so don't be afraid to put them out there. For my own part the threads I ignore tend to be the ones I know nothing about!

Best of Luck with the exams!;)