Should we do trial by jury?

[Barrister]

Why?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy'

I dunno - if you're trying to send someone to jail for many years, your theory and evidence should probably be simple enough that "idiot randos" can understand it.

As well, the whole system is designed pretty deliberately to rely on peer pressure.  We expect the 12 jurors to be unanimous - which can only happen if you think about it by people leaning on peer pressure.

The number of hung juries is really quite low when you think what are the odds of getting 12 random people to agree on almost anything.

[Josquius]

 e:

Why?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy'

I dunno - if you're trying to send someone to jail for many years, your theory and evidence should probably be simple enough that "idiot randos" can understand it.

As well, the whole system is designed pretty deliberately to rely on peer pressure.  We expect the 12 jurors to be unanimous - which can only happen if you think about it by people leaning on peer pressure.

The number of hung juries is really quite low when you think what are the odds of getting 12 random people to agree on almost anything.

What of the backlash effect and the increasing modern trend for some to want to be contratian in all things however?

I've never had anything to do with trials but in the world in general peer pressure isn't what it once was.
People no longer fear being ostracised from their community

[Barrister]

e:

Why?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy'

I dunno - if you're trying to send someone to jail for many years, your theory and evidence should probably be simple enough that "idiot randos" can understand it.

As well, the whole system is designed pretty deliberately to rely on peer pressure.  We expect the 12 jurors to be unanimous - which can only happen if you think about it by people leaning on peer pressure.

The number of hung juries is really quite low when you think what are the odds of getting 12 random people to agree on almost anything.

What of the backlash effect and the increasing modern trend for some to want to be contratian in all things however?

I've never had anything to do with trials but in the world in general peer pressure isn't what it once was.
People no longer fear being ostracised from their community

It's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

[grumbler]

It's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

Indeed.  Especially with the judge telling you all that he will not accept a hung jury verdict.  Being an asshole won't get you out of the room any more quickly.

[Caliga]

It's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

Indeed.  Especially with the judge telling you all that he will not accept a hung jury verdict.  Being an asshole won't get you out of the room any more quickly.

I've experienced this too.  In the criminal case, the defendant was black (he was a Jamaican immigrant) and even though in his defense he never once brought his race up, one of the jurors decided to make the case about police brutality and American racism (she was a naturalized immigrant from Ireland) and wasted a few hours yelling about that till she relented and joined the guilty vote.

[Barrister]

It's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

Indeed.  Especially with the judge telling you all that he will not accept a hung jury verdict.  Being an asshole won't get you out of the room any more quickly.

I've experienced this too.  In the criminal case, the defendant was black (he was a Jamaican immigrant) and even though in his defense he never once brought his race up, one of the jurors decided to make the case about police brutality and American racism (she was a naturalized immigrant from Ireland) and wasted a few hours yelling about that till she relented and joined the guilty vote.

That is always a concern (at least for the lawyers).  Not allegations of racism, specifically, but that jurors will have their own individualized knowledge and bring that into the jury room.

It's been a long time since I saw 12 Angry Men, but that's I think the conceit of the movie.  Each of the jurors is coming from their own biases when they originally vote for "guilty".

Or one I saw more recently - My Cousin Vinny.  The conclusion is Marissa Tomei's character being qualified as an expert and saying that the Accused's car couldn't have been the one involved in the murder because of it's colour and posi-traction.  But what if one the jurors stood up in the jury room and said "I'm a car salesman and she's just wrong".  That person is not giving evidence, is not questioned by the lawyers - but is still giving information the jury is considering.

I mean in your case considering the Accused's race is fair game - but only within the evidence produced.  "The way police treated the Accused in this case was racist" is one thing, "the way police treat black people in America is racist" is another.

[Caliga]

I mean in your case considering the Accused's race is fair game - but only within the evidence produced.  "The way police treated the Accused in this case was racist" is one thing, "the way police treat black people in America is racist" is another.

I may not be using this term correctly, but if I recall correctly she was basically arguing for nullification, because 'black people are treated so badly in America' so therefore he didn't deserve to be convicted for his specific action, which was a DUI.

[Barrister]

I mean in your case considering the Accused's race is fair game - but only within the evidence produced.  "The way police treated the Accused in this case was racist" is one thing, "the way police treat black people in America is racist" is another.

I may not be using this term correctly, but if I recall correctly she was basically arguing for nullification, because 'black people are treated so badly in America' so therefore he didn't deserve to be convicted for his specific action, which was a DUI.

Yup - the term is jury nullification.

So - it's not (as I understand it) a legal principle at all.  No party - not the prosecution, defence, or judge - can say to the jury "hey you can just not follow the law if you don't like it".  That in itself could be grounds for an appeal.

But by virtue of the fact a jury verdict can not be appealed (absent an error by the judge, not the jury) that means jury nullification is de facto a real thing.

It came up in a series of prosecutions against Canadian abortionist Dr. Morgenthaler.  He was prosecuted several times in the 70s and 80s, and several times the jury acquitted, despite the Crown seemingly haven proven its case.  (and just for historical record - abortion wasn't banned back then, but I think you needed to go get permission from a panel of doctors - and Morgenthaler wasn't doing any of that).

That being said - a jury trial for a DUI is insane.

[Caliga]

I agree it was insane.  After the conviction, the judge came in and talked to us and told us that he refused to plead guilty, even after being offered a generous plea bargain.

[Barrister]

I agree it was insane.  After the conviction, the judge came in and talked to us and told us that he refused to plead guilty, even after being offered a generous plea bargain.

Neither you nor the judge should know that.

[Caliga]

*shrug*

[The Minsky Moment]

I agree it was insane.  After the conviction, the judge came in and talked to us and told us that he refused to plead guilty, even after being offered a generous plea bargain.

Neither you nor the judge should know that.

The judge *could* know if a plea was agreed but fell apart during the allocution, but he still shouldn't be telling the jury that, even after the case was over.

[Caliga]

I was surprised when he came in and spoke to us at all.  I didn't know judges could do that... first time I served on a jury.

[Sheilbh]

There is some selection bias although in my own experience juries tend to be much more varied in backround.  There is something about the experience of being in the very formal setting of a courtroom, the process of being sworn in and seated in a special section, and all the pomp and cirumstance, that socializes people to act differently then they would in their ordinary casual conduct.  Everyday life is often about assuming different roles in different social circumstances and everything about the jury process pushes people into assuming the role expected of them.

Saw an interesting story that touches on this about family courts in the UK. For many years the trend there has been towards informality. The judges aren't robed, often there's no "bench" it's all around a conference table etc.

And apparently the judiciary are goinig to start experimenting with reversing that - I think there may be more separate seating for judges, who will be robed etc. There's been a problem of litigants basically not taking the judge seriously and also a big rise in abusive behaviour towards judges. So they want to see if re-introducing more formality will socialise the court differently.

But what you say is true here my understanding is that in the UK broadly speaking the most formal dress from judges and barristers in terms of robes and wigs is in criminal cases, precisely to emphasise that there is something different going on - that you're stepping into a different formal space with certain rules and conventions. It's less formal on the civil side and, broadly speaking, the higher you go up the appeals chain (I don't think the Supreme Court wear robes ever when sitting - and I don't think barristers do in the Supreme Court either).

It's a bit like the approach to filming here - which I think is the opposite of the US. Supreme Court hearings and judgements are, broadly speaking, livestreamed. I think some Court of Appeal decisions are livestreamed and in some cases a judge's sentencing remarks in a criminal case are livestreamed. They're relatively rarely picked up by broadcasters (but were for the Brexit cases) - but the theory is that it's a tool for improving public knowledge/trust in the law. So you broadcast decisions or, in the case of the Supreme Court, arguments about points of law, but you don't have livestreams of the fact-finding bits of the court.

I've no experience of juries in any way but everything here lines up with what I've heard. That people take the responsibility really seriously.

I don't think criminals are eligible for jury duty?

Broadly in the UK there's no juries in civil trials - it's still a possibility for libel but very, very rare. I broadly think that's right. I'm more of the view that criminal trials are the ones that really need juries.