Is Trial by Jury a right or a Disadvantage?

Question

A privilege? It's a throwback from Feudal times, an anachronism.

In Uk 12 people are literally plucked off streets and sit in judgement of a person on trial. (exceptions.. SF etc).

They are supposed to be your piers; they are more often nothing like that. Take a successful businessman in the dock in his fine suit and the Jurors, all maybe from poor backgrounds who hate him on sight. Or the black accused with 12 white NF jurors…

Very few people understand Law and whilst it is for them to determine facts and not Law (strictly speaking) few can distinguish between the two.

Unless a person has similar life experiences as you he is not a pier. The US have a good (but often abused) selection process for jurors.

Better I say to have 3 judges, law professors etc who are objective, impartial and know the law.

Trial by jury is not a right it is in my view an ancient ritual which should have been done away with at the same time as ducking stools.

To the person who said 'It works better than.....'

Tell that to the Birmingham 6, The Bridgewater people, Stephan Kisco (RIP) and the many others....

Yes people are there to decide on facts not Law... but as I say few know where that line is to be drawn

To the Law student. I had only a certain number of ords. I myslef am LLB. The black example was just that, an example. You need to lean to infer correctly if you have any chance of passing exams in Law.

For the record... are you really saying Black people do not suffer predjudice? F**k me boy you realy are on anopther planet....

The sun is hot.... I have no proof though... Some things are self apparent.

Answer 1

Trial by jury is not a right but a legal proceeding to try the case based on the existing laws.

Answer 2

Effective and competent judges clearly define the questions of fact, and those of law in a case and instruct juries accordingly - if they follow the instructions they receive they will never stray outside their remit: deciding questions of fact, the ultimate being 'is the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt'.

You suggest that a black accused may receive an unfair trial. Where is your evidence for this? You point anecdotally to certain cases - back it up with some empirical evidence! I refer you to the recent Ministry of Justice Jury Study, which underlines that the jury system is not intrinsically racist. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that nowadays a jury IS a jury of your peers - they more accurately reflect than ever before a true cross-section of British society.

You are correct - someone with differing life experience from you is not a PIER. A PIER is something you find on the seaside, with attractions on it. A peer, on the otherhand, is something quite different.

Far from being an unfair anachronism, the jury trial system protects many from miscarriages of justice. Juries also have the moral propensity to apply 'justice' in cases where a strict application of the law may have been technically correct.

You need only consider the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist as an example of what impartial judges sitting without a jury can do! I do not undermine the character of the judges in the case at all - but having studied the evidence myself, the conviction is ridiculously shoddy. Further see Professor Emeritus at Edinburgh Univeristy Robert Black on the wrongful (soon to be overturned I do hope!) conviction in that case.

edit

And where have I incorrectly inferred something from your well-written question? I take the piss not, I think it's a brilliant topic that needs debated on, so I starred it.

Of course I am not suggesting that black people do not suffer prejudice in society. However, a recent study by the recently re-named Ministry of Justice dispels any question of juries being intrinsically racist towards black defendants. So that sort of shoots your argument about that weakness of the jury right out of the water.

Proof could be obtained and evidence led as to the heat of the sun, it wouldn't be overly difficult. Spurious statements such as that add nothing to what could be a decent, lively intellectual debate!

I'd agree with you that law professors could sit with judges, however at final appellate level where law needs to be coherent, consistent, well reasoned and articulately expressed.

Answer 3

the comprehensive element approximately a jury is that persons are dumb and swayed via their very own biases. Judges understand the regulation and could scent BS from a mile away, this is why notably much all defendants prefer a jury trial.

Answer 4

The jury isn't obliged to know the law. What they're there to do is to determine if people are telling the truth and to add some common sense and community input to the proceedings.

It ain't great, but it works better than anything else we've ever tried.

Answer 5

Trial by jury is, in my words, "not the worst" system.

In Japan's courts, there is no jury, and therefore the conviction rate is around 98%. A little too high don't you think?

Answer 6

judges do not make decisions that are impartial. Maybe a panel of three judges would work but still they answer to everyone for their re-election. I would never put my fate in the hands of a judge to decide or even three judges

Answer 7

In the US one can refuse the jury and let the judge make the decisions....although this is somewhat rare.

Answer 8

It's a very archaic system.
and the police are bent.

Answer 9

It's a very archaic system.