The Jury - Should the system be reformed?

[sadoldgit]

Lots of discussion about the proposed changes to the jury system in this country, driven by the huge, unmanageable backlog of court cases.

I would probably have argued against any changes previously, but having watched The Jury: Murder Trial, I am not so sure. If you haven’t seen the programme it ran a previous murder trial using actors and the actual court transcripts and presented the case to two new juries. I won’t give a spoiler but the process throws in to doubt the process of how different people process the same information and how those people can influence other people.

Of course, we already have a two tier system depending on the seriousness of the crime so not everybody is tried by their peers as things stand. The mooted change will not effect the most serious crimes.

So, good thing or not?

[badgerx16]

Perhaps the Legal system needs reform, but this won't solve the problem.

There is insufficient funding, the building infrastructure is crumbling, there is a lack of capacity within the system, and the prisons are at breaking point. This would only be a solution if the problem was a lack of jurors.

 

[sadoldgit]

I don’t disagree with the problems within the CJS, but when they are booking trials in for 2030 something needs to be done.

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t disagree with the problems within the CJS, but when they are booking trials in for 2030 something needs to be done.

But if, as reported, there is a shortage of Barristers and Judges, and a backlog within the CPS due to staff overload as it processes case files, how will Lammey's reforms help ?

Edited yesterday at 13:24 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

If they are putting more workload onto the volunteer Magistrates, will they be willing to give additional time ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I would probably have argued against any changes previously, but now labour are proposing it and not the wicked Tories, I’m all for it. 

Amended for you..

[egg]

6 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

If they are putting more workload onto the volunteer Magistrates, will they be willing to give additional time ?

It goes deeper, but yes, there aren't enough magistrates. If there were, they'd need court rooms and a legal advisor. There's not enough of them. The alternative is Judges, but there aren't enough of them either and the JAC recruitment process takes forever. That's before you get to the lack of prosecution and defence lawyers, and the budget to fund them. Then prison, probation, etc etc. 

The backlog needs addressing to give justice to all concerned, but throwing a new layer into the court system isn't the answer.

The system needs root and branch reform, including a serious look at a partial shift to rehabilitative justice to address re offending. 

[sadoldgit]

18 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

But if, as reported, there is a shortage of Barristers and Judges, and a backlog within the CPS due to staff overload as it processes case files, how will Lammey's reforms help ?

It’s a start and something has to be done. As we know, no one is going to take to the streets and demand that we all pay more taxes to pay for these things so the money isn’t there to do what needs to be done to make up for 14 years of neglect.

A very experienced appeal court judge put these recommendations to Lammy so it comes from inside and someone who knows the system well. In fact Lammy rowed back on one recommendation which was 5 years sentences and less rather than 3 and less for doing away with the jury.

Doing away with the either way option was a good move. Defendants used to think that they stood a better chance with a jury so usually chose that. If you are innocent you should be confident of proving that in court whether it is a magistrate, judge or jury.

The jury system is far from perfect. There is no perfect system. It is admin heavy and long over due for reform. The reforms may not please everybody, but something had to be done and the Tories did nothing but let the system decline for years.

[badgerx16]

36 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

. Defendants used to think that they stood a better chance with a jury so usually chose that. If you are innocent you should be confident of proving that in court whether it is a magistrate, judge or jury.

 

You don't have to. The prosecution have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty.

[egg]

49 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s a start and something has to be done. As we know, no one is going to take to the streets and demand that we all pay more taxes to pay for these things so the money isn’t there to do what needs to be done to make up for 14 years of neglect.

A very experienced appeal court judge put these recommendations to Lammy so it comes from inside and someone who knows the system well. In fact Lammy rowed back on one recommendation which was 5 years sentences and less rather than 3 and less for doing away with the jury.

Doing away with the either way option was a good move. Defendants used to think that they stood a better chance with a jury so usually chose that. If you are innocent you should be confident of proving that in court whether it is a magistrate, judge or jury.

The jury system is far from perfect. There is no perfect system. It is admin heavy and long over due for reform. The reforms may not please everybody, but something had to be done and the Tories did nothing but let the system decline for years.

That's the whole point. The jury system is about being tried by our peers. 

[swannymere]

 Something had to be done, the new verison isn't perfect but unless you invest billions in the system it will continue to drag trials out for years which isn't fair on the victims or the accused.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, swannymere said:

 Something had to be done, the new verison isn't perfect but unless you invest billions in the system it will continue to drag trials out for years which isn't fair on the victims or the accused.

If there are shortages of Judges  Barristers, and Magistrates, and a lack of resource within the CPS  how do the changes help ?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Just get rid of laws and crime will go away in no time.

[swannymere]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If there are shortages of Judges  Barristers, and Magistrates, and a lack of resource within the CPS  how do the changes help ?

 Not sure, but as the current system is absurdly slow i think we have to try anything within reason. 

[egg]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If there are shortages of Judges  Barristers, and Magistrates, and a lack of resource within the CPS  how do the changes help ?

Quite. The only thing being changed is how and where people are being tried. Resources are needed across the system to accommodate it. The CPS will need staff and money, police witnesses will need to attend, defendant's will need funded solicitor and barrister representation, probation will need to report then assist after sentence, prison space and staff will be needed for those imprisoned, etc. 

Billions are needed to deal just with the above. That's before we address minor issues like the judiciary to hear the cases, and court space. The only advantage in that respect is that there's scarce court space with juror seating, and I'm assuming the many civil courts will be slightly repurposed to accommodate criminal cases which is doable without a need to accommodate jurors. 

The jury system is not the issue though. 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, swannymere said:

 Not sure, but as the current system is absurdly slow i think we have to try anything within reason. 

Exactly. Anything that speeds up the process and fewer trials by jury will do that. Putting a jury trial together is a very time consuming process administratively. I know, I used to manage the process. Multiply that by 8 to 10 courts every day with 12 jurors in each.

There hasn’t been a trial by jury in Northern Ireland for decades, for obvious reasons. The justice system still works there.

The legal system in this country in very averse to change and it is no wonder there is a measure of resistance. When we worked for the CPS my wife was responsible for implementing the use of electronic files in court in the SE Area (Kent, Surrey & Sussex). It was long overdue but the resistance from the courts, chambers and a number of our own lawyers still gives her nightmares years later.

For those who think that the jury system is sacrosanct  I suggest that they watch The Jury: Murder Trial. The only thing you can be sure of with a jury trial is that there will be a verdict (unless there is a hung jury of course). It will not necessarily be the right verdict and I will refer back to the OJ Simpson verdict as evidence that even the most clear cut case can produce the wrong verdict by jury.

Juries are fallible. Judges are fallible, but have a much greater depth of experience. To look at it simplistically we are actually taking 12 fallible components out of the trial process in not so serious cases and replacing them with one not so fallible component.

                 …………..

How long before AI gets involved?

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, egg said:

That's the whole point. The jury system is about being tried by our peers. 

Not all cases are tried by our peers so where do you draw the line?

[whelk]

Presumably everyone thinks there are untold miscarriages of justice currently being presided by magistrates?

[egg]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not all cases are tried by our peers so where do you draw the line?

For me, the line on either way cases was about right. Burglary, most assaults, theft, all of that and more should remain triable by jury. 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Presumably everyone thinks there are untold miscarriages of justice currently being presided by magistrates?

The quality of the tribunal determining a case is an altogether different issue to a massive change to the criminal justice system. For what it's worth, I'd prefer 3 lay magistrates deciding a less complex case to a single judge.

[whelk]

52 minutes ago, egg said:

The quality of the tribunal determining a case is an altogether different issue to a massive change to the criminal justice system. For what it's worth, I'd prefer 3 lay magistrates deciding a less complex case to a single judge.

I confess I don’t really know too much about the existing system or the proposals, but seem some line of argument from some that without a jury you can never receive justice.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, whelk said:

I confess I don’t really know too much about the existing system or the proposals, but seem some line of argument from some that without a jury you can never receive justice.

The vast majority of cases in the CJS never get near a Court or jury.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Presumably everyone thinks there are untold miscarriages of justice currently being presided by magistrates?

Good point. As said, no system is perfect and there will always be miscarriages of justice for a variety of reasons.

Trial by jury does not guarantee that defendants will receive a better type of justice. It just means that 12 people will decide your fate. If you are lucky you might receive a jury who takes the process seriously and give the trial process and the evidence their full consideration. You might also get a jury who can’t wait to get home and will go with the loudest voice or the strongest opinion in the group.

Just a personal opinion, but I think that you are less likely to get unsafe verdicts under an experienced judge who, I think, will be able to confer with other judges if they are struggling to reach a decision) than random groups of people whose level of engagement in the process and general suitability is undetermined.

Another thing to consider, rape cases will continue to be tried by jury. How would you feel about them being tried by all male or all female juries? If you think there might be an unconscious bias in either, at what point does that cease to be a concern in a mixed sex jury? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Putting a jury trial together is a very time consuming process administratively. I know, I used to manage the process.

You’ve had more jobs than Mr Fucking Benn. Im calling pony on this one…

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I confess I don’t really know too much about the existing system or the proposals, but seem some line of argument from some that without a jury you can never receive justice.

I take your point, and justice can happen without a jury system. Although I don't think it should happen, this can work, if well managed and properly funded at all levels of the system. That's a big ask. 

[egg]

54 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Good point. As said, no system is perfect and there will always be miscarriages of justice for a variety of reasons.

Trial by jury does not guarantee that defendants will receive a better type of justice. It just means that 12 people will decide your fate. If you are lucky you might receive a jury who takes the process seriously and give the trial process and the evidence their full consideration. You might also get a jury who can’t wait to get home and will go with the loudest voice or the strongest opinion in the group.

Just a personal opinion, but I think that you are less likely to get unsafe verdicts under an experienced judge who, I think, will be able to confer with other judges if they are struggling to reach a decision) than random groups of people whose level of engagement in the process and general suitability is undetermined.

Another thing to consider, rape cases will continue to be tried by jury. How would you feel about them being tried by all male or all female juries? If you think there might be an unconscious bias in either, at what point does that cease to be a concern in a mixed sex jury? 

Judges suffer conscious and unconscious bias. Just one of them trying you is just one person's approach being taken. On your rape example, that's just one man or woman. In a magistrates system you've got 3, and probably both genders. In a jury, there's 12, and it won't be just men or women. There's a wider dilution of individual views in a jury system, and none at all in a one judge process. 

On the latter point, Judges will not and cannot confer with judges not involved in the case. Wrong to suggest otherwise. Any decision will be made independently - judicial independence is part of the role. 

Where we do agree is that some jurors can't give a monkeys, and take no real interest in the case. That's not, imo, a reason to remove the right to elect trial by jury though. 

[whelk]

I’d happily be a professional juror. Did it once previously and got 3 out of 3 convictions. 
Might have to rethink what I say my motive is, as wanting to take the scum off the streets I may not come across as neutral.

And also, fuck me what short days the work. Sent home by 3pm everyday I think
 

[Lighthouse]

15 minutes ago, whelk said:

I’d happily be a professional juror. Did it once previously and got 3 out of 3 convictions. 
Might have to rethink what I say my motive is, as wanting to take the scum off the streets I may not come across as neutral.

And also, fuck me what short days the work. Sent home by 3pm everyday I think
 

Have you considered any superhero/vigilante work? Seem like it’d be your kind of thing, you’d just a catchy nickname and a tight fitting, Lycra bodysuit.

[Farmer Saint]

Maybe we should stop people doing as many crimes?

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Maybe we should stop people doing as many crimes?

Or lock up persistent offenders for longer so they don't have to do multiple trials for the same person. 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Or lock up persistent offenders for longer so they don't have to do multiple trials for the same person. 

We still have a problem with overcrowding prisons. I think reducing crime is the best idea.

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We still have a problem with overcrowding prisons. I think reducing crime is the best idea.

Lock less people up for stupid things and be harsher on those who repeatedly offend.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’ve had more jobs than Mr Fucking Benn. Im calling pony on this one…

Especially as he also stated the accused has to prove their innocence in court. Doesn't seem to know the first thing about our justice system.

I suspect he used to count pencils and issue staples to the office clerks.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Judges suffer conscious and unconscious bias. Just one of them trying you is just one person's approach being taken. On your rape example, that's just one man or woman. In a magistrates system you've got 3, and probably both genders. In a jury, there's 12, and it won't be just men or women. There's a wider dilution of individual views in a jury system, and none at all in a one judge process. 

On the latter point, Judges will not and cannot confer with judges not involved in the case. Wrong to suggest otherwise. Any decision will be made independently - judicial independence is part of the role. 

Where we do agree is that some jurors can't give a monkeys, and take no real interest in the case. That's not, imo, a reason to remove the right to elect trial by jury though. 

Yes, I agree about the judge but at least that person is very experienced and wants to be there. There will still be an appeals system if it is believed that the judge has got it wrong for whatever reason.

The rape example - they are not tried in a magistrate’s court - was just to demonstrate that a jury will never give you a perfectly balanced cross section of society (not that there is such a thing) and there will always be elements of bias in a group of people with different life experiences. A jury’s strength (a peer group) can also be its weakness.

I didn’t know if the conferring had been suggested as part of the new system. Judges do take advice. They look up similar previous cases.

Where does judicial independence work on the magistrate’s bench?

 

[Weston Super Saint]

31 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We still have a problem with overcrowding prisons. I think reducing crime is the best idea.

Leave them in a big field with a razor wire fence around it and the materials to build their own tented village. Problem solved.

We've got way too many fields anyway

[whelk]

57 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Have you considered any superhero/vigilante work? Seem like it’d be your kind of thing, you’d just a catchy nickname and a tight fitting, Lycra bodysuit.

I also would need a super power. Unless knocking them to the ground and pissing on them counts?