M-13 - Trial by Jury

[Angora]

Did several searches. Didn't have much luck.

Here's the thing. Where I live right now, we have jury trials (about identical to the ones in the States) where citizens are randomly summoned for jury duty, and, in a long drawn-out process, a certain number of them are selected to serve as jurors in criminal trials. The judge can advise the jurors, but in the end, it's the jury, made up of random people, that comes up with a verdict.

I think that's dumb.

Frequently, the jury makes what is clearly the wrong decision from a logical or legal standpoint. Why? Because people who know about the law (lawyers, judges, even police officers) are prohibited from serving on the jury. When someone who knows something, by some miracle, isn't prohibited from serving, they get dismissed during jury selection. Why? Because right now, it's more important to choose a sympathetic (read: irrational) jury than to actually prove your case. That's some kind of justice for you.

I think we should do something more like the French system, and have people tried by a panel of judges. Speaking for myself personally, I think most of the decisions that have come down from the higher courts in Canada have been quite good in the last few years. They're good about not letting their personal feelings get all mucked up in it. And I know I would feel more comfortable letting people who have actually studied the subject make decisions on it.

So, here is my question that I'm asking you.

Do you prefer trial by your "peers", trial by judges, or something else, and why?

[ssimons]

Trial by peers, definitely. As in the way we do things in the states.

I think no matter where you go, mistakes are always going to be made in the legal process; people are going to be found guilty when they're innocent and vice-versa. I think that people in a place of power can easily become corrupt; with a jury, people know all they have to do is participate in this trial and make a well-thought out decision and that's it, they're done. Call me an optimist, but I think that most people who serve on a jury will do their best to come to an objective decision. However, I do think it is getting really hard to find a non-biased jury these days.

As we get older, we choose where we live. Part of choosing where we live is accepting the laws of the mother country. You can't just choose the benefits of the law and not expect to be subject to them also. Which is kind of off-topic...

[PhoenixUK]

In the end, humans are never going to be the best judge of right and wrong, but at least having a jury of people will hopefully avoid bias by having just one person. In the end, no justice system is going to be 100% just, it's impossible unless no-one ever lied. However, it's our duty to provide the best system that we can based on the best methods that we have available, and I think that in terms of judgement a jury will be pretty fair.

[Confessor]

Did several searches. Didn't have much luck.

Here's the thing. Where I live right now, we have jury trials (about identical to the ones in the States) where citizens are randomly summoned for jury duty, and, in a long drawn-out process, a certain number of them are selected to serve as jurors in criminal trials. The judge can advise the jurors, but in the end, it's the jury, made up of random people, that comes up with a verdict.

I think that's dumb.


It's not dumb, but it's not the fool-proof way to do it. A jury is supposed to be unbiased towards the accused. We're all aware, however, that that is not always the case. If the jury doesn't know the accused, then it has become a fair chance, instead of a jury that knows the accused and will either be totally one way or the other. Sadly, often times one person will let their own personal agenda/bias/hatred get in the way and create a hung jury.

Most judges I've seen (I've been to my nearest courthouse on plenty of occasions) have been unreasonably biased against younger defendants. If it were a panel of judges, who happened to think young people should be incarcerated simply based on what their minds can fabricate, it wouldn't exactly be 'fair', especially if the accused was innocent.

[Angora]

It's not dumb, but it's not the fool-proof way to do it.

Sorry. The "dumb" part was a little tongue-in-cheek. :)

I would still feel better going before three or more judges than six or more random people. But I like to hear what other people think.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I'd choose trial by jury. It's true that lawyers and judges and the like have a better grasp of the technicalities of the law, but what is so great about trial by peers is that your peers will more often than not choose what is right, even if that's not exactly what the law says. In other words, we shouldn't get too caught up in the letter of the law. It's there for a reason, and it should always be there, but skimping around the letter of the law should be illegal without a penalty, so to speak. Laws restrict our freedoms to preserve our security, but they cannot go on a case by case basis. Laws are created before the case, and cannot choose what is right and what is wrong for each individual case. A jury, however, can choose what is right. And don't think people are that stupid - they do know something about the law, and the lawyers tell them more.

[Angora]

I don't want to be one of those people that starts a thread and then immediately monopolizes it by arguing with everyone. But I do have something to say.

but what is so great about trial by peers is that your peers will more often than not choose what is right, even if that's not exactly what the law says. In other words, we shouldn't get too caught up in the letter of the law.

But if you go to trial you can argue that you did what you did, but it shouldn't be illegal. And judges have ruled before in other cases that the law is wrong and it needs to be changed, because the person before them is an example of why it doesn't work. So then you change the law, and the legal system is better. I think that the other way, of just ignoring the law when it looks like it doesn't work, is much more dangerous and subjective, and not really in the spirit of a judicial system. Nothing ever gets fixed that way, just people feel free to be a little bit lenient when they want to be. To me, that doesn't address the problem.

And don't think people are that stupid - they do know something about the law, and the lawyers tell them more.

My primary concern isn't that people are stupid, exactly, but that they can be misled if they're not used to making legal decisions. If you're choosing a random sample of the population, and then systematically removing people who seem like they would disagree with what you have to say (through jury selection) you're going to end up with a huge proportion of jurors who are prepared to just go with their instincts, which may make them more prone to falling into the psychological traps that the lawyers lay out for them. Because instead of being an intellectual exercise, very often arguing a case is becomming more and more of a dramatic exercise, and I think that's just wrong.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

But if you go to trial you can argue that you did what you did, but it shouldn't be illegal. And judges have ruled before in other cases that the law is wrong and it needs to be changed, because the person before them is an example of why it doesn't work. So then you change the law, and the legal system is better. I think that the other way, of just ignoring the law when it looks like it doesn't work, is much more dangerous and subjective, and not really in the spirit of a judicial system. Nothing ever gets fixed that way, just people feel free to be a little bit lenient when they want to be. To me, that doesn't address the problem.
That's true and that's a good point. I myself am not sure which I would choose. I know this, though - if I had committed a crime, I would find a judge, or a panel of judges, much more imposing and much less likely to see my point of view than a jury of peers.

My primary concern isn't that people are stupid, exactly, but that they can be misled if they're not used to making legal decisions.
But remember, both sides are trying to lead the jurors the other way. If there was just one lawyer, then obviously a jury of peers wouldn't be right. But when there are two sides, they are battling each other. Overall, I think that on issues of legal technicality, judges deciding may be better, but if the issue is who killed someone, a jury would be just as valid in making the decision as the judge, if not more so because they would be more connected to the situation that the alleged murderer was in. Almost no trials, after all, are tricky legally - nearly all are straightforward, which-side-has-more-evidence.

[Angora]

if I had committed a crime, I would find a judge, or a panel of judges, much more imposing and much less likely to see my point of view than a jury of peers.

See, what my mind immediately jumped to was if I hadn't committed a crime, then judges would be more likely to go by the letter of the law and say, "Okay, you were within legal bounds, even though I feel it was distasteful" or else "okay, that law might violate your rights" whereas jurries, since I come accross in... shall we say an abrasive way? Are likely to be more taken with the fact that they don't like me, or that they don't like what I did, rather than whether I was technically allowed to do it.

I mean, there's this whole sneaky business of calling character witnesses. Nothing could have less to do with the issue than whether Mrs. Thompson thinks you're such a good boy. And yet they paint a picture, and the jury is predesposed to relate it to their own lives (like he'sdead said) and their own biases. Whereas a judge is more concerned with following a logical procession of "What exactly transpired?" "How certain are we that that transpired?" "Does that constitute a crime?" etc, etc, like a computer, but with the capacity to notice when the tools provided aren't working right.

[Weatherby]

I don't think having a jury is a dumb idea at all.
The problem with judges and lawyers is they tend to face elections and need to please people. They could be influenced by this into making "examples" of people if they need to push their laws.
Juries aren't biased. Rather they aren't supposed to be.

The problem is when they are asked to ignore evidence or a remark made by a witness or lawyer. Can they really forget what they heard?

[Magi]

Trial by jury, is definitely better, IMHO.

I have experienced of the criminal justice system in my county from both sides: twice as a juror, and twice as an observer.

The idea behind Trial by Jury is that the jury is a representation of the community. The jury, it is assumed, are 12 (in a criminal case) "reasonable" members of the community.

Therefore, the ability to effect justice is placed in the hands of the community, rather than the judiciary. This minimises the potential for judicial corruption, and guarantees the retention of power by the community, in proxy. And most importantly, imposes a layer of accountability to a trial.

Another important aspect of Trial by Jury, is the principle of "Jury nullification power". Jury nullification is the power of the jury to override the law without breaking it. If the jury decides that a law is unreasonable or that the case is unjust, they have the ability to refuse to give a guilty verdict. This is an extremely important power, because it allows the representatives of the community (ie. the jury) to judge the properiety of a law when applied to individual circumstances. (It should be noted that a jury cannot use the nullification power to pronounce a guilty verdice; the power only applies to not-guilty verdicts.)

Last but not least, the argument about "sympathetic" jury is almost a non-issue. In Australia, both the Crown and the Counsel, have the right to reject a juror for whatever reason. Both sides of the case have the ability to appoint a jury of their liking. This ensures that the jury are as unbiased as humanly possible.

The judiciary only administers the law, it usually does not execute it. Even in trials, the judge's role is to ensure a fair trial for the defendant, and explain the jury on the judicial process and relevant laws to use as guidelines. The power to pronounce a verdict is solely on the hands of the jury.

Ultimately, jury trials are a means of preserving the rights of the people. The right of the people to ensure that their system of justice maintains its jurispudence, and that the laws of the land are reasonable, correct, and fair. It is better to allow a guilty man to be wrongfully free, than to allow society to be enslaved by an unjust, corrupt, or even athoritarian judiciary.

[Angora]

As far as I know, judges still aren't elected in Canada. They have to worry about getting kicked off the bar, I guess, but they don't have to worry about what the general population thinks. And I think that's a possitive thing. Especially in recent years where the supreme courts have been ruling that a lot of laws that are very popular violate the character of rights (which they do). I think that if you have judges being elected by the public it's a good way to lead to tyrrany of the majority, which is one of the same reasons that I don't like jury trials. I absolutely oppose the idea that justice should be up to the community. It should be up to the legal sysetem, so long as laws respect the freedoms that, in a free country (like the one I live in and the kind I am expressing an opinion about), have been laid down by the government. If the laws aren't right then you change them. You don't circumvent them. The very idea that you can circumvent the law negates what a law is. And then you don't have a legal system. You have a system where society passes judgement on other memebers of society based on what they personally think.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

The nice thing about the judge/jury system is that one element checks the other. If the judge feels the jury was too severe, or too lenient (assuming the defendent is not simply acquitted), he can reflect that in his sentence. And if the judge is somehow biased in his administration of the case (which, since judges are only human, does happen), the jury can take that into account in their decision.

[Mireille]

IMO, trial by a jury is probably the best way to go if you believe that you can get off. Because you have to convince more then one person it might be a better method. If anyone has ever read 12 Angry Men you will know what I am talking about. It only takes one person to disagree with everyone else to keep the jury in deliberation. And it has to be a majority vote in order for anything to happen. If not, the out come is a hung jury and could potentially get the person on trial off pretty easily.

[Magi]

I absolutely oppose the idea that justice should be up to the community. It should be up to the legal sysetem, so long as laws respect the freedoms that, in a free country (like the one I live in and the kind I am expressing an opinion about), have been laid down by the government.Herein lies the crux of our disagreement. This is a really good thread, by the way. :)

First: since a law, and all laws, must serve the community, I think it is only right that justice should be up to the community.

Second, freedoms are not laid down by the government. This is the sort of thinking that leads to authoritarian rule. Freedoms are "God-given" and unchangeable. The government is to enforce these freedoms, and the people are to ensure that the government doesn't breach this obligation. The jury system is one of the ways we can check whether the government is respecting our freedoms, since laws are set down by the government, and administered by our justice systems.

If the laws aren't right then you change them. You don't circumvent them.It would be nice, if it was that easy. Here, a law can only be changed by an amendment, which has to change an Act of parliament. So you have to convince a politician to change this law in the first place. There are pitifully few politicians who actually bothers to do this sort of thing.
Otherwise, you can appeal to the Australian High Court, and that effort takes a small fortune to do. 99% of people can't afford it.

The very idea that you can circumvent the law negates what a law is.It only negates the law, if the law's application was legitimate for that trial.

You have a system where society passes judgement on other memebers of society based on what they personally think.Not really.

The jury doesn't arbitarily pass judgement. The jury determines guilt or innocence, nothing more. And the jury are still required to account for the relevant laws, and to only give verdicts for specific crimes listed in the defendant's indictment.

Also, and very importantly, the jury cannot arbitarily pronounce a guilty verdict. "Circumventing" the law, via jury nullification, can only bring about a "not guilty" verdict. Therefore, the defendant's freedom cannot be breached, even if the jury circumvents a law.

I think that if you have judges being elected by the public it's a good way to lead to tyrrany of the majority, which is one of the same reasons that I don't like jury trials.I agree that judges shouldn't be elected. But disagree with the notion of tyranny of the majority.

I'd rather have tyranny of the majority, instead of tyranny of the judiciary, or tyranny of the government.



As a parting shot, I'd like to put forward this scenario:

In Australian law, a driver who hits a car that is in front of them, is always considered to be at fault. Regardless of cicumstance.

One day, a man (A) is driving a car at a safe speed along the motorway, when an impatient driver (B) comes roaring up behind him, stomps on the brakes and begins to tailgate him. After some time, driver B decides he doesn't want to drive behind driver A, and overtakes him, cuts him off and slams on his brakes.... apparently as an act of road rage.

Unfortunately, driver A cannot react in time, and strikes the rear of driver B's car, sending it out of control, and into a horrific crash. Driver B dies as a result.

The police decide to prosecute driver A for manslaughter. Since the law says driver A is technically at fault, the police are confident of a guilty verdict.

So what do you say? If you were in the jury, and you were presented with several witness accounts detailing the story as I have described it, what would your verdict be? Would it be right to use jury nullification power to overrride the current law? Or do you follow the letter of the law, and pronounce him guilty?

[Angora]

Second, freedoms are not laid down by the government. This is the sort of thinking that leads to authoritarian rule. Freedoms are "God-given" and unchangeable. The government is to enforce these freedoms, and the people are to ensure that the government doesn't breach this obligation. The jury system is one of the ways we can check whether the government is respecting our freedoms, since laws are set down by the government, and administered by our justice systems.

Okay, I'll award you that. :) I don't like the phrase "God-given" for obvious reasons, but I do believe in universal human rights. So, what I should have said is that in free countries the government enshrines human rights, and it's up to the judiciary to make sure that laws fall in accoradance with what will serve to uphold human rights.

It would be nice, if it was that easy. Here, a law can only be changed by an amendment, which has to change an Act of parliament. So you have to convince a politician to change this law in the first place. There are pitifully few politicians who actually bothers to do this sort of thing. Otherwise, you can appeal to the Australian High Court, and that effort takes a small fortune to do. 99% of people can't afford it.

There are some differences in the ins and outs of how the executive relates to the judiciary in different countries that I hadn't thought about when I asked the question, but it makes for good discussion.

Judges decide sometimes, and maybe not often enough, to set a new precedent and then there's a big hoopla and it goes to the supreme courts and they decide that either things aren't defined properly, or they strike the law down, or whatever else. And here, finally, after years of court cases they've decided, for example, that the current definition of marriage is discriminatory. So, it is possible. But I agree that in some cases it can be expensive to take something through the proper channels.

However. If criminal cases always came before a pannel of judges, and the judges were vested with the power to rule that, in their legal judgement, the law constituted a violation of rights, or was not defined properly, not only would it speed things a long, but it would be a more direct way of addressing any problems in the legal system. And there would still be a bit of a check and balance system because even if you got three specific judges who were very bad, you could take it all the way through provincial and federal court through appeals. If all the judges in the country were so incredibly corrupt as to pass down a biased verdict (contrary to the nature of their calling to be a judge) every single time, then we'd have bigger things to worry about then whether we ought to have had a jury.

Also, and very importantly, the jury cannot arbitarily pronounce a guilty verdict. "Circumventing" the law, via jury nullification, can only bring about a "not guilty" verdict. Therefore, the defendant's freedom cannot be breached, even if the jury circumvents a law.

But here's an example of a case that got me thinking about this in the first place, a few years ago.

There was a man who got pulled over, and attacked a police officer. He went to trial and it was clear to everyone that he did attack the guy, and that the officer who was attacked had done nothing inappropriate. The defense dragged a lot of racial issues into it, because the defendant came from an area where there's a lot of racial tension. The judge advised the jury as strongly as he could that whether or not the man had been the victim of discrimination previously, they needed to remember that the officer hadn't done anything discriminatory, or aggressive. The jury found the defendent not guilty. I would say there's something deeply wrong with that, and that the officer's right not to be attacked wasn't respected.

I agree that judges shouldn't be elected. But disagree with the notion of tyranny of the majority.

I'd rather have tyranny of the majority, instead of tyranny of the judiciary, or tyranny of the government.

Tyranny of the majority is just as bad as tyranny of government or of the judiciary (though, I think the judiciary and government would both have to be tyrranical in order for one of them to be). Tyranny of the majority does not respect the rights of individuals. It respects what makes most people feel good. Maybe you have a more optimistic view of human nature than I do, but in my experience doing what's right very rarely coincides with doing what makes most people feel good.

In the final example, about the motorist, the most appropriate thing to do would be to say that that law clearly doesn't work. A jury can't rule that, but a judge could.

[Benzo]

I know a little bit about the Canadian criminal law and I know you can't really expect a more objective trial in front of one or three judges than a jury. Some judges are conservatives and some are liberals. My husband is a criminal lawyer and he chooses the right judge to get a 'better' sentence depending of the crime :rolleyes:

The interest of a trial with jury is that a jury can take decisions that a judge can't. For example, abortion was illegal and Dr Morgentaler ( who practices abortions) was trialed twice in front of jury and each time he was cleared of the accusation. A judge could not have done that. That is how abortion became not criminalised in Canada.

The jury are informed about how to process to give a legal and fair verdict. They are isolated to not be influenced by people or the medias. It is not a perfect system for sure. This a human processus and there is not perfect system. One judge or threejudges, they are humans . I hope, I'm not sure an alien would follow the human laws!

There is no tyranny of the majority in a Canadian trial, it is the tyranny of the consensus!!!

The consensus is mandatory to force people to think seriously about their decisions. It is not who think like the others win, it is everyone has to agree with the verdict. That forces people to make a serious thought before agreeing on something.

You can't compare 12 standard citizens being in charge of one single criminal case with the government. Yes no jury is perfect and sometimes there will be individuals who will force people to get the consensus but that is not the case of the government. We live in a democracy and yes it is the majority who wins. In a tyranny only the friends of the government have a decent life. I think 'tyranny' is really inapropriate in this context. The tyranny of the majority you are talking about is democracy and good democracy give space for the individual rights.

Never compare a not perfect democracy with any kind of tyranny, or you don't know what is a tyranny. In a tyranic system you would not be allowed to post what you wrote...

[hesdead-dealwithit]

The problem is when they are asked to ignore evidence or a remark made by a witness or lawyer. Can they really forget what they heard?
No, but it's not just that. Sure, disallowed evidence leaves an impression, but often when juries decide (I have heard), they set everything out in front of them, put all the evidence into two groups. Remember, the decisions are mad ein deliberations, not while listening to the lawyers. So if there's a particularly juicy piece of evidence that is disallowed, even if someone feels in their heart that the person is guilty, if that's the only real evidence against him, it will be impossible to convict.

[Benzo]

The problem is when they are asked to ignore evidence or a remark made by a witness or lawyer. Can they really forget what they heard?

No they can't erase it from their mind. It is called 'comtaminating' the jury. It is illegal but some lawyers use that strategy.

[Angora]

Tyranny of the majority (which, incidentally, is not a concept I made up myself) came up origionally in relation to electing judges. The point being that if judges were afraid that they would be booted out for making unpopular decisions, they would be more willing to uphold laws that violated minority rights (like in the gay marriage issue).

I related that to the jury because in that case, if the jury isn't bound to uphold the law, and can't overturn the law, then their personal feelings can enter into it. Not even necessarily in the case of a standard "minority goup" but against people who differ from the norm. It's not to the same degree that it would be with elected judges, but it's still not ideal. I personally think you would get less of people's personal opinions entering into it with judges, but I'd be willing to come down and say that you would get comperable amounts. But the advantage to judges is still that it would be much harder for the lawyers to mislead them. Meaning, the problem with judges would be what they bring to the table, but the problem with the jury would be what they bring to the table in addition to what happens once they get there.

Yes, judges come conservative and liberal, but a bad judge is one who lets that affect his/her decisions. If a very liberal judge ruled that a drug deeler should be allowed to sell marajuana illegally, that would be wrong. If a very conservative judge ruled that service people were allowed to deny services to gay people, that would be wrong. But no matter what their political leanings, they should still be equally able to look at the law and see if it works properly, if they don't let their personal feelings into it - which many of them are perfectly able to do.

EDITED TO ADD: I shouldn't have said tyranny of the majority was just as bad as tyranny in the traditional sense. I apologise. I take that back. But it's just as wrong. And it's bad enough that we need to take it seriously. That's what I meant, and I overshot my own point when I went to say it.

[Benzo]

Probably my last post for me here, because I start to repeating myself. No matter you are in front of a jury or a judge, they are human and their opinions affect their decision. Juries have helped the society to adapt to new realities like abortion of gay issues. The legal system is a human one and it is kind of rotten but it is still a good system.

[Tane]

Trial by a mixture of peers and jury because then there is an overall judgment made on sound fact and not just here say. You can't judge a book by its cover, you can't say someone is this just because you don't like the way they sound or look and for me to convict anyone I would need concrete facts about the person not just what someone else thinks or says. Ordinary people with no experience can very easily get a person wrong, though saying that I also think that if there are those who are convicted or accused of something they have not done or are not, then that person is entitled for compensation due to the stress such a miss judgment can do, including ridiculing a persons name in front of the masses.

People have been sentenced to death only to find that they where innocent after being killed, which is why I think people should be put on trial before peers and jury, a mixture.

[Wab]

Having spent a couple of years hanging around courts I'd go with a panel of magistrates any day.

As most law is hugely complex it's impossible for lay folk to really get a grip on what the true issues are and they are more likely to sway to the side that puts up the most superficially convincing argument.

A trubunal system would free up the courts because the cases would be shorter as the arguments would more likely stick to the point.

[hermy_weasley2]

Do you prefer trial by your "peers", trial by judges, or something else, and why?

A jury of your peers. That way, the people making the decisions aren't worried about their paychecks or re-elections or what-nots. The system's never going to be perfect, but having the same group of people judging all trials could lead to major corruption.

[Loonicrous]

I think trial by jury is good. However, after serving on a jury before, I know that jurors make their decisions before the trial is over and before a deliberation, even though they're not supposed too. Right after I sat down in the jury room, I knew that a few people knew their verdicts and were not changing their minds no matter what. It took a day to figure out what I knew in the first 5 minutes - mistrial.