Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
probably best we do away with them, ey?
I'm sure there would be far fewer than 1 in 12 people that I would trust to wash my car, never mind anything else.
When its only people who are definitely guilty of crimes who end up in court?
but not before i get to serve on one
Jury > Can you define what is meant by reasonable doubt?
Judge > Reasonable doubt is a doubt...that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words.
I mean, from the outside and not on a jury, it seems obvious. But in practice how certain do you need to be to be clear that any doubt you have is unreasonable about something? It's probably quite hard to judge. I think the jury are getting a bit of a hard time.
You need to see the rest of the questions.
The mind completely boggles.
Are these real questions? Good god, how do these stack up to other questions asked Ouef? Are they normal? Because that jury sounds like a bunch of fucking idiots (or just one idiot asking a lot of stupid questions).
She told me earlier about a jury who once reached a verdict using a ooija board. Nothing surprises her any more.
Hello, yes, no, goodbye
`Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?`
"Can we speculate?"
It's just the tone of the answer. All this stuff was (supposedly) explained to the jury quite a few times, and the polite exasperation is just funny.
And were they allowed to imagine what potential witnesses who weren't actually called might have said.
There was someone powerfully thick on that jury. Like, child of meths and meowington levels of derp.
There are some things they are very good for and I'd trust a bunch of random *normal* people more than a judge to, e.g. make a judgment in relation to whether some recalcitrant youth is or is not lying.
ON the applicatoin of the law however they are largely horrific, but the interests of justice are usually served in the sense that lots more accuseds go free (due to trials collapsing or the judge realising that they are ballsing it up and pushing them towards an acquittal.)
that defendants (defence councils) can pretty much dismiss any member of the jury they don't like the look of?
(i.e. knew a victim or an accused) but on no other grounds.
the radio lied to me then (again)
to deselect anybody they like without having to give a justificatoin.
In places like the US and I think france, the jury is quizzed quite rigorously to ensure they're up to the job. SO much prejuecice obviously seeps into this process.
There the counsel can negotiate on the jury (out of a limited pool).
her exercised his right to trial by jury, even though it should have been dealt with by the magistrates. He was ultimately acquitted. The system works!
Casey Anthony was mentally unstable from grief
Richard Madeley forgot he had the wine on him
WHY DON'T YOU ALL LEAVE THESE INNOCENT PEOPLE ALONE YOU ANIMALS
wait a minute!
(ie rapes, murders, v serious assaults) are tried by jury.
But patent infringement trials in the US are still conducted with juries. You cannot expect a group of lay people to correctly apply a particularly over-complicated set of laws to properly tricky bits of technology and get anything sensible out. You just can't.
US attorneys will do whatever they can to avoid a jury verdict because, regardless of how strong an argument is for either side, as soon as it goes to a jury verdict it's just 50/50. Ridiculous.
(and I'm not sure how much better it is in the UK). The number of ridiculous patents that are being filed means that they're rarely given the scrutiny that needs to be given by experts, then it's left up to defendants in trials to do the USPO's job and try to prove that a patent should never have been awarded in the first place, but with the decision lying with laymen who often don't have the knowledge to understand the detail the case.
I'm sure it served them well for years, but the whole system's been overwhelmed and looks to be unable to cope with 21st century business practices without pretty heavy reform
In particular they have difficulty retaining examiners because private practice is so much more lucrative. As a result there's a dearth of very experienced examiners and some examiners get assigned cases which are quite far outside their area of technical expertise.
I can tell you from personal experience of being on the other side of the table (so to speak) that it's not uncommon to get objections from them which make it painfully obvious that they don't have a blind fucking clue about fundamentals of some subject areas. You can see then how they could miss important things at the other extreme too.
who were thick as pigshit. So they spent most of their time bickering while some intelligent normal people tried to get their point across that reasonable doubt is exactly what it says on the tin, but in the end have to stand back and let them send a hilarious list of questions to a judge. Thinking about it, pick any 12 people at random - 12 people you sit nearest on a bus, or in an aisle of a supermaket - and imagine having to co-operate with them. Or have them determine if you are guilty or not. Fucking terrifying.
I've sat through enough meetings with fuckwits in my time to be able to imagine exactly the type of person it was.
All it takes is one vociferous numpty to derail the entire jury room.
the 11 other people that were with me, as stupid and annoying as they were, were actually quite thoughtful and honest when it came to the verdict. it kind of made me feel good about the great british public i.e. when it really mattered, they could come to the right decision.
still would have sacked them all off in favour of the judge deciding in a second tho.
Dead boring case, but REALLY fucking loved the deliberations at the end of it. Was off work for 3 weeks too. Brilliant.
I was called up AGAIN at Christmas but I had to excuse myself (you're allowed to if you did it in the last 2 years).
I can't remember what. And even though we were all of massively different backgrounds / had difference beliefs / all had immensely different opinions and interpretations of what had gone on, I think the verdict we gave in the end was totally right.
so much waiting around. it's a surprise any case gets tried with amount of faff that goes on.
jury wise, i just listened to what the judge told and based my decision on that. he seemed to know more about it than all of the people i had to deliberate with.
in conclusion, we don't need juries. maybe we did 300 years ago when they were all corrupt alcoholics, but not any more
My days started at 10am and finished at 3pm, I got a free lunch. We deliberated for 2 days I think it was, at the end, and I found that massively rewarding actually, mainly cos I disagreed with everyone which resulted in us asking the judge if we had to reach a unanimous decision (he's accept a majority in the end, but luckily everyone agreed with me in the end).
I do vaguely remember some really stupid questions and ideas being thrown around during deliberation, like speculating about people's pasts and that, and assuming things which hadn't been presented as evidence at all, and I think if we'd been deciding the verdict on anything other than what it was (a very minor crime), I wouldn't have felt comfortable with the process. But as it was, I did.
But yeah you're probably right, let the judges decide.
3 days that took to try/tri (sp?). 3 DAYS. like you, it started at 10am but on some days we finished at like 2:30. they'd say things like, 'best not to get into that now, the jury will need to go lunch in 5 mins'. CHRIST. there was just so much time wasting.
even some of the defendants didn't even bother smartening up.
the whole thing made me really depressed actually. in the time gaps i was reading 1984, which didn't help.
While I was doing it there was another jury who'd been in for OVER TWO MONTHS and apparently the trial was gonna go on for ANOTHER MONTH *AT LEAST*. Crazy.
some anecdotes from my time:
one girl was a student, and moaned everyday that she was knackered and couldn't get up this early. we started at 10am and were done by 3pm with an hour for lunch every day.
on the first day of being in the deliberating room, one woman said, 'someone should tell a joke to break the ice', so this other girl goes, 'right i'll tell you one...what do you call a cunt wrapped in plastic?'...i burst out laughing even before the punch line.
some people were disgusted. especially the woman i hated, which was nice.
should have remembered that one for your thread yesterday huh?
I have no anecdotes sadly. We did have some people who struggled to get in on time / didn't say ANYTHING though.
what do you call a cunt wrapped in plastic?
like, if i was going to do it. let's really get bedded in and have a go
i can probably deal with sitting and waiting and listening and shuffling in and out of a room every time something doesn't quite go to plan. but i'd at least like some trainers on my feet instead of smart shoes
does your employer just HAVE to give you the time off? and you don't have to use any of your annual leave?
so you can write back and tell them that your boss won't let you off? fair enough
but they HAVE to let you do it
(By law, you must do jury service when asked). There are exceptions though, like if you've done it in the last 2 years etc.
Nope, you don't use annual leave. If you ever get summoned there's loads of paperwork and that to fill in.
but you do get a free lunch and travel. and if you dont spend the money on lunch (i.e. if you bring a packed lunch) they give you the cash at the end of the service. MENTAL.
and if you can;t do it you have to list when you CAN do it in the next year and stuff.
Yeah the free lunch thing was mental. I had M&S lunches for a few days and then pocketed the cash for the rest of the time.
My sister did jury service at the OLD BAILEY last year. Jealous.
imagine the faff that goes on there!
-barrister needs to say something to the judge? everyone stand up and get out of the room.
-someone doenst turn up on time? everyone stand up and get out of the room.
-a 'point of law' needs to be discussed? everyone stand up and get out of the room.
- someone has photocopied the wrong piece of evidence? yep, you've guess it...
(Disclaimer: No fun)
(It might get you out of ever having to do it again)
Was about 21 and not the well-rounded (no-one gonna nod that over the line?) responsible, important businessman i am now. Couldn't really be bothered, and doubt i'd have really added much to any discussion, to be honest, so told them i didn't fancy it.
If i got asked again i'd definitely do it. In fact, would feel obliged to, and would maybe even be quite interested to see exactly how it works and that. Plus, paid time off work and that.
like, if i got asked to do it, i would definitely feel obliged to. like it was absolutely my responsibility. even more than voting
First time at least.
I didn't lie to them or anything, just said i suffered from anxiety, which at the time was true. Didn't say it was probably a side effect of smoking week every day, obviously.
To be honest, if you're young, i don't think you should need a reason to get out of it. You might not have enough life experience, and sitting in a room with a group of (probably) older people you don't know could easily be quite daunting.
They should make it voluntary for people under a certain age, i think.
I've still got the letter. Bright pink thing it is.
No way you could have googled that...
we haven't all been to reeptionist touch-typing school, mate.
Are we saying anxiety isn't a thing?
It feels a bit like the little child in school nobody likes desperately trying to convince the cool kids that his Dad really is a helicopter pilot.
Wow. That's quite nasty for you.
Don't let all that filing get your down, love.
There's some work experience kid in this week so that's all taken care of. I'm sat with a mug of Bovril watching repeats of Kavanagh QC.
it still counts as my first "he's done you" right?
and the desire to 'be a detective' is pretty overwhelming. You sit there listening to stuff, ready to jump in with AHA! But the defendant is LEFT HANDED!, which is all bollocks but after years of conditioning on badly made cop shows, it's quite natural to do once you're in that environment.
You'd just hope that when the jury sit down to deliberate all their various tics and prejudices cancel each other out and they come up with something half sensible.
People here are saying 'I wouldn't want 12 random people to make this decision about me', but think of it like a quiz - you can either ask one random person to give you an answer, or 12 people - you'd all pick the 12 people, because there's a much better chance that one of them would actually know.
or one person with a long and distinguished career in the specialist are of teh questoin.
You see, there's the rub.
and 'there's the rub'.
I'm going for lunch.
doesn't always mean they can appreciate the nuances of a case and the implications of what has been discussed. How often do we get stories where judges have had to question simple aspects of pop culture? In terms of serving the right judgement, I'd argue they can be just as random as any man on the street...
That's sort of why I think mags courts have such a solid system, three interested, knowledgeable people, making judgements on the guidance of a legal expert who runs the show. That's the future that is.
Not sure I like the way this Pistorius trial is shaping with dragging up dirt on the prosecuting police officer. Reminds me of what happened in the OJ Simpson trial
Isn't it more the case that the proceedings against the prosecuting officer were already underway in a different part of South Africa when the Pistorius case happened (if I'd read correctly they were instigated on 4th February)? I thought it seemed to be an unfortunate coincidence that this has all broken around the Pistorius case, and that the defence were as baffled as anyone else by it?
But I heard that's been tightened up now.
Did they actually ask this?
Fucking hell. Some of the questions are fair enough but this. WHAT.
in the jury or has tv lied to me again? If true I bet the ones who put themselves forward for that role are a right treat
but it's basically like, 'who wants to volunteer to go in goal?'. you all sit there until someone can't stand the pressure anymore and wilts.
Might print those questions out and send them to the judge just to see what he/she says.
the chances of there being a 'you can't handle the truth' moment seem pretty slim
My dad's a judge and he's an idiot.
It's a murder 1 with a jury. Though, interestingly when the prosecution and defense have finished directing, cross examination and redirect with a witness, the Judge allows the Jury to ask questions too. Through the Judge. The foreman sends a list to the Judge who checks the legal teams have no objections and then asks.
On a rape case. It was brutally depressing, and not just because of the grim subject matter.
It was a two week trial, where we were continuously sent back into the jury room due to 'matters of law'. Combine that with the quite horrific way the victim is treated by the defence, and the 2 days of deliberation which followed where a few people revealed themselves to be unbelievably stupid. I was the youngest person there by a distance but some people showed an incredible lack of compassion. One of our jury was also dismissed because he decided not to turn up twice, leaving us, and more importantly the victim, sat around waiting for two days in a row before being sent home.
I was left pretty disillusioned with our court system in all honesty, especially in cases of that nature.
'Reasonable doubt' basically (police investigators didn't do too good a job following up evidence which could have been illuminating.) Had my doubts about the decision then and still do now though, me and a couple of others changed our minds reluctantly, but there really was no other option at that point in the deliberation. Problem is I envisage the majority of rape cases ending up the way ours did.
I don't think the system works for incident's which so rarely involve witnesses, especially when jury members can be so easily be swayed by a defence lawyer intimidating the alleged victim.
But it you have a reasonable doubt then that's all you need and you MUST acquit. It's the law. (deosn't make it easy or feel good tohugh, esp if your gut is telling you otherwise.)
Had to call a number the night before to see if I was due in. That went on saying nah for a week. Finally needed to actually turn up. Went in two days in a row and sat about for a couple of hours each time and then got sent home without anything happening. Went in on the third day and they sent us straight home saying that they wouldn't be needing us.
Still, I got the compo money for having to be away from work, and then work forgot to not pay me, so I got paid twice.
So much wasted time and money. Came away thinking that there must be a more efficient way of organising it.