12 Angry Foxestalkers

[DB11]

So looking on the Gov website.... in 2016 67% of all Crown Court cases were a guilty plea And people still think I'm not right?

 

I'd be interested to know of the 33% 'not guilty' pleas how many were subsequently found guilty.

[David Guiza]

29 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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. 

Oh not at all, it's not that I expect there to be 12 Lord Denning's sat there week in week out, just not the chance of having my potential guilt being decided on by 10-12 members of the public whom could be easily swayed by a wide range of things from emotion and body language to appearance and speech. I'm not for one moment saying that members of the public are not fit for the job, but there are certainly plenty that are eligible whom probably shouldn't be for one reason or another. The vetting process isn't going to get rid of every unsuitable candidate.

 

An alternative would be far from faultless, but I think it's the less of two evils. 

 

As has been said also, 12 Angry Men is fantastic as both a cinematic piece and a representation of how close an individual can be from the curtains coming down. 

 

Edited 26 February 2018 by David Guiza

[Sol thewall Bamba]

27 minutes ago, DB11 said:

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

 

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Fùck right off.

Wow, even by FT standards that hit rock bottom early doors. Great scenes  

[goose2010]

I was a dury about 6 years ago attempted murder two old boys (talking in their 70's) had fell out over money and one shot the other. Was pretty horrific viewing some of the photos of the aftermath. Got found not guilty due to the guy shooting used to be a trained marksmen in the army so said if he wanted to kill him he would have! he had already pleaded guilty to ABH (we werent told that until after obviously) but was an interesting experience. Lasted about 8 days.

[Izzy]

Jury Service is a pain in the arse for employers. It’s like having an extra member of staff off sick or on holiday and can cause a big inconvenience. Not sure what the answer is but my heart sank whenever a member of staff said they’d been selected because you can’t plan for it.

[Guest]

40 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.

Agree with David and Buce

 

38 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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. 

Some cases are very technical and the common man has no idea.

 

36 minutes ago, DB11 said:

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

If that's the case why bother having a jury or a court? Just hang the bastards.

 

25 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

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. 

That does seem to be very wrong. 

 

 

Personally I have little faith in a jury but I don't see that as the problem with our system. For me it is the adversarial nature of proceedings. The defence can know that the person is guilty and yet they have to try and win their defence in whatever way is necessary.

 

I'd prefer a system where "experts" and judges look at the facts and decide the outcome in a collaborative manner so that guilty people are found guilty and innocent ones are found innocent. I understand why we have adversarial proceedings but I think that's an anachronism. 

[StanSP]

Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

Jury Service is a pain in the arse for employers. It’s like having an extra member of staff off sick or on holiday and can cause a big inconvenience. Not sure what the answer is but my heart sank whenever a member of staff said they’d been selected because you can’t plan for it.

how far in advance do those selected get told they're going to be needed?

 

Can you still defer it as well? 

[Buce]

26 minutes ago, DB11 said:

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

 

Being found guilty doesn't mean that you are.

 

Few defendants can afford a barrister of the same standard as the prosecution can.

[StanSP]

21 minutes ago, DB11 said:

So looking on the Gov website.... in 2016 67% of all Crown Court cases were a guilty plea And people still think I'm not right?

 

I'd be interested to know of the 33% 'not guilty' pleas how many were subsequently found guilty.

i think your statement was just quite blunt and came across as if there's no point having any court system  

 

Can't you plead guilty but still get a lesser charge (guess depending on your barrister and lawyers you have). It's not just cut and dry 'guilty if it gets to court'. 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

 

Some cases are very technical and the common man has no idea.

 

 

I think in some complex fraud cases there are different rules.

 

The police and CPS are supposedly experts but they bring innocent people to trial all the time. Do we want a group of people who all piss in the same pot deciding our fate? 

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

how far in advance do those selected get told they're going to be needed?

 

Can you still defer it as well? 

I think it’s only a few weeks notice that you get and I only thought you could defer it under exceptional circumstances (in hospital or abroad etc). I could be wrong though.

 

I’m now self employed so the possibility of one day maybe being selected myself doesn’t appeal at all. You only get covered expenses and not loss of earnings I think.

[the fox]

I don't like it, not one bit! There is a reason judges (and prosecutors) study law and have the qualification.What if you had the misfortune of having people on their bad ruin your life? What if the criminal is a great actor and can fool normal people?

Edited 26 February 2018 by the fox

[Suzie the Fox]

Isn't it 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' where jurors are told they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced (99% sure) he or she has committed the crime? 

 

Therefore if average Jo/Joanne isnt sure they would not give the guilty verdict.

 

Or is that just Law & Order and CSI

 

[StanSP]

Just now, Suzie the Fox said:

Isn't it 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' where jurors are told they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced (99% sure) he or she has committed the crime? 

 

Therefore if average Jo/Joanne isnt sure they would not give the guilty verdict.

 

Or is that just Law & Order and CSI

 

depends what the judge asks. 

the judge can ask for a majority vote or unanimous vote. So your average person voting either way because they're unsure sometimes may not help determine whether someone gets sent down or not. 

[Suzie the Fox]

Just now, StanSP said:

depends what the judge asks. 

the judge can ask for a majority vote or unanimous vote. So your average person voting either way because they're unsure sometimes may not help determine whether someone gets sent down or not. 

I didn't realise that. I probably watch too much American crime shows.  

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Isn't it 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' where jurors are told they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced (99% sure) he or she has committed the crime? 

 

Therefore if average Jo/Joanne isnt sure they would not give the guilty verdict.

 

Or is that just Law & Order and CSI

 

Not sure the rules now Suzie but 11-1 or 10-2 is classed as unanimous I think. So if Jo/Joanne isn’t sure but the rest of the jury are then it’s an overall guilty verdict. I think

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I think it’s only a few weeks notice that you get and I only thought you could defer it under exceptional circumstances (in hospital or abroad etc). I could be wrong though.

 

I’m now self employed so the possibility of one day maybe being selected myself doesn’t appeal at all. You only get covered expenses and not loss of earnings I think.

 

I don't know if it's still the case but my loss of earnings was covered.

[pSinatra]

I was on a jury in 1995 whilst I was at university in Sheffield.  It was a murder case & I found it fascinating.  I'm actually grateful for the experience.

 

Jury service lasted for 2 weeks & I spent the first week waiting for a trial to come up.  That wasn't so interesting.

 

There were 2 defendants in the dock, who had beaten a man to death at a house party in Hull.  The deceased was an alcoholic man, who had been given some money to go to the shops to buy some more alcohol.  On his way back from the shops he had met some people at the park & drank all the alcohol.  When he got back to the house, he had no money & no alcohol - so was beaten to death.  The dead guy was tiny, about 5'5" & 8 or 9 stone.  One of the defendants was huge & a bouncer in Hull.  They didn't just beat him, but kick the shit out of him, & used copper piping to kill him.  The photos of the body were horrendous & I can still picture them now.  They had beaten him to a pulp.

 

The enormity of the situation wasn't lost on us, the jury.  The feeling of responsibility was massive - that justice should be decided by me & 11 other ordinary people.  The responsibility to dead man's family.  I felt under a lot of pressure.

 

The case lasted a week & we were disappointed in the end that we never got to make our decision.  We were forever in & out of court, at the judges request, as the court discussed matters we were not privy to.  The barristers of the accused managed to negotiate a plea bargain & the defendants pleaded guilty to manslaughter & not guilty to murder.  They were given a sentence of 3 years each.  As they had already served 12 months on remand, they would be out in 6 months.  We spoke to a policeman involved in the case after the trial & he told us that the case had effectively failed as the prosecution wouldn't be able to prove which of the defendants actually killed him.

 

We were disgusted at the outcome & didn't really understand how the 2 men could be out in 6 months.  We didn't didn't care who dealt the final blow, they were as guilty as each other. 

 

The jury was made up of regular people who had no prior knowledge of the legal system.  Based on the evidence we had been given we would have all said guilty.  No doubt about it.  We were given no information about the case once it had ended & we were not spoken to again.  We were all left feeling pretty disillusioned.  

 

I think the OP is right to some extent, that we were possibly not the best people to assess a situation we had little to no understanding about.  I didn't feel this at the time, but when I've thought about it since, I appreciate that view a lot more.  The law is ridiculously complex & it should rely on facts & nothing else.  To rely on some dopey student or some soppy grandmother who brought her knitting to jury service (that actually happened) when so much is at stake is too much responsibility & it's impossible to not be emotive.  I like to think of myself as open-minded & willing to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.  Am I the best type of person to have on a jury?  It's the luck of the draw & god help anyone on trial with jury full of Katie Hopkins types.

 

I didn't mean to write this much but, as I said, I found the whole thing fascinating & a total eye-opener to how the legal system works.  I would recommend it to anyone.

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I don't know if it's still the case but my loss of earnings was covered.

It’s peanuts though isn’t it? Like £30 a day? I could well be wrong.

 

Not sure it’s worth the time and hassle claiming it back for some. 

[pSinatra]

8 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

It’s peanuts though isn’t it? Like £30 a day? I could well be wrong.

 

Not sure it’s worth the time and hassle claiming it back for some. 

 

I was a student when I did mine.  A nice little earner.  Claimed for food & travel.  Took a packed lunch & walked to court.  Walked away with about £100.

 

What you can claim

[Voll Blau]

Channel 4 did a fake murder trial a few months back with cameras in the jury room. Fascinating insight into how jurors' minds work.

 

In the end the jury was deadlocked. It showed you what had actually happened afterwards and it turned out me and my missus, playing along at home, would have delivered the wrong verdict - but as mentioned the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" so I do sympathise when the wrong calls get made.

 

I've been in courtrooms before when defendants have definitely got away with quite serious crimes, and it's pretty sickening to see them celebrating outside afterwards though.

Edited 26 February 2018 by Voll Blau

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, pSinatra said:

 

I was a student when I did mine.  A nice little earner.  Claimed for food & travel.  Took a packed lunch & walked to court.  Walked away with about £100.

 

What you can claim

Ah ok, cool.

 

My only experience is from my old corporate life and having members of my team selected for jury service and the inconvenience it caused me and the rest of the team.

 

Great earlier post btw. Fascinating 

[RowlattsFox]

We left through the main court entrance at the end of each day and the defendant and family were always standing just outside court. Bit awkward. 

 

On in my other case I got on the same train as the defendant  kept my head down. 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, DB11 said:

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.

Probability has fvck all to do with a criminal verdict

[pSinatra]

10 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Ah ok, cool.

 

My only experience is from my old corporate life and having members of my team selected for jury service and the inconvenience it caused me and the rest of the team.

 

Great earlier post btw. Fascinating 

 

My missus is on jury service in a couple of weeks (god help the defendant).  She was supposed to be on it just before Christmas, but as she works in retail her employers went apeshit & she ended up ringing the court, giving them a load of flannel about why she couldn't do it.  I told her to tell her bosses to bollocks, but she felt under pressure to do as her employers wanted. The court agreed to postpone it for a few months.

 

When I did it years ago, I seem to be remember you could defer once, but if you got asked again you had no choice.  It might be different nowadays.

 

Like you say.  It can be a pain in the arse......for the employer & the employee.

Edited 26 February 2018 by pSinatra