12 Angry Foxestalkers

[SouthStandUpperTier]

I got selected for 2 weeks jury duty last May. I didn't want to do it, and as I was sitting in the jury waiting room on that first day, looking around at all the other jurors faces, hardly anyone else did either.

 

The whole process is so inefficient. You have to arrive by 9.15am, but several people turned up late, some not at all. Eventually there were about 30 of us in the waiting room. We had to wait til 11.30 while the legal teams got their shit together. While we were waiting the jury clerk took us up to Court 1 for a quick tour, which was educational and informative, and helped settle my nerves a bit. 

 

Eventually I was one of 15 people chosen to go back up to Court 1, from which 12 of us would be selected. You stand there like a lemon in the corner of the courtroom. Everyone is already in place - the judge, the clerks, the legal teams, the public gallery, and the defendant (who was staring us out). The court clerk had all our names on cards, shuffled them, and then reads out the first 12. If your name is called you take a seat in the jury box. My name didn't get called, so I along with 2 others went back down to the waiting room (once the legal teams had no objection to any of the jurors selected). When we got back to the waiting room it was empty as the other 15 jurors had been called up to Court 2 for another case. The jury clerk then told the 3 of us that the 2 trials would last a few days so we could leave and come back the next Monday. Result.

 

Came back the next Monday, another 2 hours waiting and watching shitty daytime TV in the waiting room (I took Harry Harris' book on The Immortals to read, but couldn't really concentrate). Then, close to midday, 16 of us got called up to Court 2 (the previous weeks Court 1 case was still ongoing) for another case that was about to start. Again I wasn't one of the 12 selected. Back down once again to the waiting room. The jury clerk says to the 4 of us that our jury service is over. I was pleased but the downside was that my boss wanted me back at work the next day as they were really busy.

 

Again I feel that the whole process is inefficient (too much wasted time). I would say most of the people selected don't want to be there, and that can't be good for the judicial process, so a professional panel would be better IMHO.

Edited 26 February 2018 by SouthStandUpperTier

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours 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.

Which is why it's 12 people and not 3 or 4. I've done jury service and on one case (you often sit for more than one, they've got you for two weeks) one juror had decided the defendant's guilt using the DB11 method and could provide no logical argument other than, "he must have!" Fortunately, the judge was willing to take an 11-1 decision. Don't think we'd have ever dissuaded him, and the other option was for him to persuade all 11 of us that he was right.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Which is why it's 12 people and not 3 or 4. I've done jury service and on one case (you often sit for more than one, they've got you for two weeks) one juror had decided the defendant's guilt using the DB11 method and could provide no logical argument other than, "he must have!" Fortunately, the judge was willing to take an 11-1 decision. Don't think we'd have ever dissuaded him, and the other option was for him to persuade all 11 of us that he was right.

Probably fancied himself as a bit of a Henry Fonda 

[Guest]

5 hours 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.

 

. Sorry. I'm not meant to be here.

Edited 26 February 2018 by Guest

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

. Sorry. I'm not meant to be here.

Toddy is alive!!!

 

[Buce]

 

It’s a pretty shoddy design, if that’s the case. The Guilford Four? The Birmingham Six? Countless other lower profile cases?

Edited 27 February 2018 by Buce

[stripeyfox]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It’s a pretty shoddy design, if that’s the case. The Guilford Four? The Birmingham Six? Countless other lower profile cases?

 In the cases you mention, the jury reached the decision based on the flawed or withheld evidence presented to them. It's not the jury that was the problem in these cases

 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It’s a pretty shoddy design, if that’s the case. The Guilford Four? The Birmingham Six? Countless other lower profile cases?

Don't forget Ivan Dobsky as well.

 

 

[ScouseFox]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

"That judge, he's so judgemental."

justice is done. not actually justice but what i wanted to happen, which is basically the same thing 

 

that might be one of the better episodes of all 9 series. 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Who is the angriest foxestalker?

 

Kitch?

[Wymsey]

4 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

Who is the angriest foxestalker?

 

Kitch?

Ann2 imo.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

Who is the angriest foxestalker?

 

Kitch?

If it was most misanthropic, it wouldn't even be a contest.

 

As far as angry goes...well, that's closer IMO.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

9 hours 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.

 

Sexist bastard ?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's an interesting one.

 

IMO the criminal justice system should prioritise acquitting the innocent over convicting the guilty, and I'm sure you could find conflicting studies as to whether or not a jury trial does that. To be honest (as Matt pointed out earlier) the idea of standing up in a courtroom as an innocent person who has been charged, with my future in the hands of my lawyer and twelve members of the public entirely open to their own views and prejudices is pretty damn terrifying.

 

And this isn't even taking into account the plea bargain system here in the US where prosecutors will happily nail innocent parties (along with guilty ones) with lighter sentences by first threatening them with a much bigger punishment should it go to court - as I said in the DP thread, if, as an innocent party, you have a choice of six months inside if you cop a plea and ten years if it goes to trial and your lawyer isn't up to it/the jury gets it wrong, what would you do? Very glad the UK doesn't have a similar system.

 

English law does do that - if you consider all of the reporting restrictions that are put in play and contempt of court law, that is all their to prevent ‘serious predjudice’ of a fair trial (my NCJT exams next week, so i’m refreshing on this area at the moment).

 

But I would imagine what @DB11 said is also true, that on balance most cases taken to trial the defendant will be found guilty - because the CPS who decide to bring the cases will have to have a certain threshold of evidence or deem the case in sufficent public interest to bring it in the first place.

 

Yes, there are the few cases where they’ll get it wrong or the defence can bring sufficent counter arguments to instill doubt... but that’s unlikely to be the norm. It’d actually be concerning from a public cost point of view if there were more acquittals than convictions. 

 

 

[ozleicester]

The film is one of my early inspirations, unfortunately our justice system has been broken and I no longer trust the jury or the judge system. If the system is lying and making stuff up, then your time in court is pointless.

 

If you would like evidence of how it fails, the is an App .  ABC Listen. Which has a section about three people who were jailed after the police lied.

Earshot/wrongful is the podcast, each runs about 40  mins. I highly recommend a listen if you are interested in justice

[kingcarr21]

I was on jury service last year and I found it quite fascinating. I was on for 2 weeks and ended up only on 1 case for burglary and assault. It was crazy how after listening to the prosecution in my mind it was like 'well its obvious they are guilty', but then the defence stood and everytime he did he blew my mind, There was plenty of evidence to suggest they did it but none of the evidence was absolute 100% concrete that they did it. So when deliberating all of us were saying that the guy was obviously a nasty piece of work and 99.9% committed the burglary and assault but without decisive evidence there was no way we could give a guilty verdict as there was 'reasonable doubt'. Everything the defence said to counter each piece of evidence was feasible.

 

Also the victim of the crime took the stand and everything he said just didn't ring true with us on the jury. Like the attacker was similar height to him (over 6') when the guy in front of us was just over 5'.

 

In the end we had to give a not guilty verdict.

 

In the end I was gutted it was over, I was quite happy to carry on, the people I got to know on the jury were nice people. I would welcome jury service again with open arms.

[Steven]

16 hours ago, DB11 said:

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

Between 70 and 80% of the time that is true.

[lgfualol]

I would definitely take bribes so probably best I never get called up.

[stripeyfox]

52 minutes ago, kingcarr21 said:

I was on jury service last year and I found it quite fascinating. I was on for 2 weeks and ended up only on 1 case for burglary and assault. It was crazy how after listening to the prosecution in my mind it was like 'well its obvious they are guilty', but then the defence stood and everytime he did he blew my mind, There was plenty of evidence to suggest they did it but none of the evidence was absolute 100% concrete that they did it. So when deliberating all of us were saying that the guy was obviously a nasty piece of work and 99.9% committed the burglary and assault but without decisive evidence there was no way we could give a guilty verdict as there was 'reasonable doubt'. Everything the defence said to counter each piece of evidence was feasible.

 

Also the victim of the crime took the stand and everything he said just didn't ring true with us on the jury. Like the attacker was similar height to him (over 6') when the guy in front of us was just over 5'.

 

In the end we had to give a not guilty verdict.

 

In the end I was gutted it was over, I was quite happy to carry on, the people I got to know on the jury were nice people. I would welcome jury service again with open arms.

This was similar experience to mine. Absolutely loved it, particularly working with other people form all walks of life and all ages all thrown together like this. Was amazing to see a young girl on the first day who was so nervous she could barely talk, but with a bit of gentle coaxing and encouragement from the others to express her opinion she was literally a changed person by the end of it.

 

 

 

I was fascinated by the whole process. On the first day (whilst the victim was giving her in court evidence), it was getting to the end of a long day and the judge didn't want to have the girl return the next day - rather to get her ordeal out of the way - and asked if any of us minded staying late. We all said this was fine, but one juror said her car park ticket only ran until 5pm and after that she'd get a ticket. The judge said "don't worry about that., if you get a ticket, bring it to me and I will make it disapear"

 

Power, man!
 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I am Interested what system the people against the current jury system would like to put in place?

 

I consider the jury system reasonably fair, it is a group of random individuals from different walks of life with varying intelligence and emotional skills, I believe the consensus of a group of people is better than the judgement of one person.

 

If a judge alone makes the decision their opinion maybe affected by something or they maybe lenient or lent by other individuals so I would consider this an awful system. Judges can and often do make some pretty poor decisions on sentencing so to trust some of them with the whole process is risky in my view.

[David Guiza]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am Interested what system the people against the current jury system would like to put in place?

 

I consider the jury system reasonably fair, it is a group of random individuals from different walks of life with varying intelligence and emotional skills, I believe the consensus of a group of people is better than the judgement of one person.

 

If a judge alone makes the decision their opinion maybe affected by something or they maybe lenient or lent by other individuals so I would consider this an awful system. Judges can and often do make some pretty poor decisions on sentencing so to trust some of them with the whole process is risky in my view.

There's been a few alternatives put forward for reform (which has generally been knocked back as many times as the House of Lords Reform), and alternatives used elsewhere in the world too - such as trial by professionals and a judge in areas of Scandinavia. I'm not a particular fan of trial by judge alone as it somewhat anti rule of law and from watching the Oscar Pistorious case in South Africa it just didn't seem quite right. 

 

My personal choice would be either a professional or a specialist jury. There are obvious downsides to both, the most significant of which is taking away the community from the legal system. However, a specialist jury in particular would, in practise, reduce the likelihood of an incorrect decision as the defendant would be tried by persons with expertise in the particular area in question.

 

As I alluded to in an early post, I don't think there is a perfect solution to the issue - but the alternatives seem better to me than the current system. 

[stripeyfox]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

There's been a few alternatives put forward for reform (which has generally been knocked back as many times as the House of Lords Reform), and alternatives used elsewhere in the world too - such as trial by professionals and a judge in areas of Scandinavia. I'm not a particular fan of trial by judge alone as it somewhat anti rule of law and from watching the Oscar Pistorious case in South Africa it just didn't seem quite right. 

 

My personal choice would be either a professional or a specialist jury. There are obvious downsides to both, the most significant of which is taking away the community from the legal system. However, a specialist jury in particular would, in practise, reduce the likelihood of an incorrect decision as the defendant would be tried by persons with expertise in the particular area in question.

 

As I alluded to in an early post, I don't think there is a perfect solution to the issue - but the alternatives seem better to me than the current system. 

A specialist jury would be a good idea I think, providing their "independence" could be guaranteed. Could even be by volunteers, so instead of having some guy resenting being there because he is losing out financially, you could have maybe a retired person who wants to volunteer. I would definitely volunteer and most people who I have spoken to who have served have said they'd like to do it again.

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, stripeyfox said:

A specialist jury would be a good idea I think, providing their "independence" could be guaranteed. Could even be by volunteers, so instead of having some guy resenting being there because he is losing out financially, you could have maybe a retired person who wants to volunteer. I would definitely volunteer and most people who I have spoken to who have served have said they'd like to do it again.

 

Hmmm that would require a really good vetting system, otherwise you'd just end up with a pool of crotchety old weirdos with a fetish for sending people to jail serving and people like yourself being in the minority.

 

Plus, if you end up having a system where only people who aren't constrained by family, time or work commitments doing it, then juries are going to end up being less representative of communities than they should be - as is often the case with people who serve as magistrates or as councillors now.

Edited 27 February 2018 by Voll Blau

[stripeyfox]

9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Hmmm that would require a really good vetting system, otherwise you'd just end up with a pool of crotchety old weirdos with a fetish for sending people to jail serving and people like yourself being in the minority.

 

Plus, if you end up having a system where only people who aren't constrained by family, time or work commitments doing it, then juries are going to end up being less representative of communities than they should be - as is often the case with people who serve as magistrates or as councillors now.

Good point. Jury full of retired middle class Daily Mail readers.... not good!
 

[Kopfkino]

This is inherently a democracy v epistocracy debate which doesn't usually get enough air time so this is good. There's a fair few modern political theorists and social scientists that back epistocracy.

 

This is obviously a lot easier to say when I have no reason to feel wronged by a jury, but I don't think it is necessarily important for a decision to be good. If you accept that decisions of juries tend towards being good then that is enough. It's essentially the value of the procedure that matters.

 

And I remember a judge on R4 a few months ago (can't remember who it was) talking about his career and saying only once did he not understand the jury's decision. 

 

 

Edited 27 February 2018 by Kopfkino