12 Angry Foxestalkers

[David Guiza]

Following on from the debate in the Capital Punishment thread, and something I mentioned in an earlier post on there, I wondered what the general consensus on trial by jury is. Has anybody been a part of jury duty before? (Obviously you can't go into any great detail - but how did you find it?)

 

Personally I can see why it exists, it serves an important democratic function in that it allows members of society to play a significant role in specific trials. However, were I to be falsely accused of something, I would not want to have to rely on 12 of my peers, most of whom are likely to have little to no knowledge on the interpretation of the law; yes they are assisted in this process throughout by multiple sources, but ultimately I would rather face a panel people whom posses some sort of expertise.

 

[Innovindil]

Never been on jury duty and pretty much hope I never have to be. 

 

Far more qualified people than me to decide someone's fate. Not to mention if it was a criminal case on something I particularly hate, I couldn't guarantee I'd be able to separate feeling from fact. 

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Following on from the debate in the Capital Punishment thread, and something I mentioned in an earlier post on there, I wondered what the general consensus on trial by jury is. Has anybody been a part of jury duty before? (Obviously you can't go into any great detail - but how did you find it?)

 

Personally I can see why it exists, it serves an important democratic function in that it allows members of society to play a significant role in specific trials. However, were I to be falsely accused of something, I would not want to have to rely on 12 of my peers, most of whom are likely to have little to no knowledge on the interpretation of the law; yes they are assisted in this process throughout by multiple sources, but ultimately I would rather face a panel people whom posses some sort of expertise.

 

Personally I’d definitely have more faith in impartial members of the general public, over what would become professional jurors.

[StanSP]

i've always wanted to be on jury duty. Can't wait til I get called up and would be extra bonus if it was a really juicy and serious case. 

 

[Guest MattP]

Never done jury duty, weirdly I would love to, although I realise how naive that sounds given how distressing it can be.

 

I still favour 12 men over a judge, people from wider society should be allowed to decide this rather than an elite few, plus we have seen some shocking decisions by judges as well as juries over the years, some are hopelessly out of touch.

 

As an aside, if anyone hasn't watched 12 Angry Men, do so.

[StanSP]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Never done jury duty, weirdly I would love to, although I realise how naive that sounds given how distressing it can be.

 

I still favour 12 men over a judge, people from wider society should be allowed to decide this rather than an elite few, plus we have seen some shocking decisions by judges as well as juries over the years, some are hopelessly out of touch.

 

As an aside, if anyone hasn't watched 12 Angry Men, do so.

superb film.

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Following on from the debate in the Capital Punishment thread, and something I mentioned in an earlier post on there, I wondered what the general consensus on trial by jury is. Has anybody been a part of jury duty before? (Obviously you can't go into any great detail - but how did you find it?)

 

Personally I can see why it exists, it serves an important democratic function in that it allows members of society to play a significant role in specific trials. However, were I to be falsely accused of something, I would not want to have to rely on 12 of my peers, most of whom are likely to have little to no knowledge on the interpretation of the law; yes they are assisted in this process throughout by multiple sources, but ultimately I would rather face a panel people whom posses some sort of expertise.

 

 

Having served on a jury I can say that I sincerely hope I'm never in a position to have my fate decided by one.

 

Think of how thick the average person is, then realise that they are precisely the kind of people who are going to be asked to follow an often complicated case and reach the correct verdict. I used to scoff at all the prisoners who claimed they were innocent until I sat on a jury with someone who decided on the defendant's guilt based purely on the fact that his eyebrows met in the middle.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Buce said:

I sat on a jury with someone who decided on the defendant's guilt based purely on the fact that his eyebrows met in the middle.

What do you do when that happens?

 

I presume you can have this reported to the judge and have the jury member removed for such behaviour. 

[Webbo]

I don't think you have to be an expert on the law to decide whether someone is guilty or not, I think you're also over estimating the competence of experts. I prefer the jury system. 

[DB11]

For it to even get to court in the first place they're probably guilty

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Having served on a jury I can say that I sincerely hope I'm never in a position to have my fate decided by one.

 

Think of how thick the average person is, then realise that they are precisely the kind of people who are going to be asked to follow an often complicated case and reach the correct verdict. I used to scoff at all the prisoners who claimed they were innocent until I sat on a jury with someone who decided on the defendant's guilt based purely on the fact that his eyebrows met in the middle.

Yeah but he was probably right tbf.

[Strokes]

Just now, DB11 said:

For it to even get to court in the first place they're probably guilty

Fùck right off.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

What do you do when that happens?

 

I presume you can have this reported to the judge and have the jury member removed for such behaviour. 

 

Nope.

 

No one was challenged to justify their stance except by the other sane jurors.

[DB11]

Just now, Strokes said:

Fùck right off.

Bit aggressive.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, DB11 said:

For it to even get to court in the first place they're probably guilty

 

What an idiotic statement.

[DB11]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

What an idiotic statement.

Why's that then?

[lifted*fox]

this forum man, ffs  

 

is DB11 really suggesting that everyone who ends up in court is most likely guilty? 

 

jeeeeez

[Manwell Pablo]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

Never done jury duty, weirdly I would love to, although I realise how naive that sounds given how distressing it can be.

 

I still favour 12 men over a judge, people from wider society should be allowed to decide this rather than an elite few, plus we have seen some shocking decisions by judges as well as juries over the years, some are hopelessly out of touch.

 

As an aside, if anyone hasn't watched 12 Angry Men, do so.

PERSONS MATT PERSONS THE FEMINISTS WILL BE KNOCKING THE DOOR DOWN

[RowlattsFox]

Did jury service around 18 months ago. Managed to sit on two cases, both starting on a Monday and lasting the week each. Nearly half of the first jury were named on the second as well which I felt was a little weird considering it is supposed to be random. 

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, DB11 said:

For it to even get to court in the first place they're probably guilty

You couldn't be more wrong. If you want a recent example just look at some of the ridiculous rape cases sent to court by the CPS that were thrown out, sometimes within hours.

 

Being in court as an innocent man (or woman!) and having to experience a situation where a lawyer far cleverer than you, far sharper than you and on their home turf trying to trip you up to get a guilty verdict is one of the most horrific things you can go through.

Edited 26 February 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

PERSONS MATT PERSONS THE FEMINISTS WILL BE KNOCKING THE DOOR DOWN

I'm amazed the film hasn't been "no platformed" yet.

[Fox1norfolk]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Having served on a jury I can say that I sincerely hope I'm never in a position to have my fate decided by one.

 

Think of how thick the average person is, then realise that they are precisely the kind of people who are going to be asked to follow an often complicated case and reach the correct verdict. I used to scoff at all the prisoners who claimed they were innocent until I sat on a jury with someone who decided on the defendant's guilt based purely on the fact that his eyebrows met in the middle.

I have been on a jury.  And one member was not English and could not even speak it with any fluently so how he understood the case I have no idea 

 

[StanSP]

16 minutes ago, DB11 said:

For it to even get to court in the first place they're probably guilty

you can't seriously believe this, surely...?

[DB11]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

You couldn't be more wrong. If you want a recent example just look at some of the ridiculous rape cases sent to court by the CPS that were thrown out, sometimes within hours.

 

Being in court as an innocent man (or woman!) and having to go through a situation where a lawyer far cleverer than you, far sharper than you and on his home turf trying to trip you up to get a guilty verdict is one of the most horrific things you can go through.

You can't just ignore the word probably in my original comment, that is to say more than 50%.

 

I bet you that more people are convicted than acquitted at court. And that includes people that plead guilty at court because that is still within the scope of my original comment.

[DB11]

Just now, StanSP said:

you can't seriously believe this, surely...?

I bet you that more people are convicted than acquitted at court. And that includes people that plead guilty at court.