12 Angry Foxestalkers

[Steven]

57 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

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. 

 

 

I back the idea that anyone who earns less than me cannot participate in a process that impinges on my commercial or personal freedom. 

[Manwell Pablo]

So do you get your full wage for jury duty or not?  

 

EDIT: So looks like employers discretion

 

If not you end up with £32 - £64 a day depending on how long you are there for for the first 10 days and it increases there after.  Assuming that's tax free it's not that bad

Edited 27 February 2018 by Manwell Pablo

[sylofox]

I have no problem with the jury and a judge sitting to make sure its a fair trial.

 

I do however have a problem with namby pamby judges not giving ou fitting punishment to a point letting off some crims.

 

The government should set up a punishment tariff and no choice. So if brawling in the street is 3 months first offence that's what you get. 

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

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. 

 

 

I read a book relatively recently about the problems with democracy (Jason Brennan - Against Democracy) and the proposal of alternatives, one of which being epistocracy. It's certainly an interesting debate; I generally find myself torn between thinking that it's a good idea and that it would work well and practice, but ultimately end up against as it would probably end up as a nirvana for some and a tyrannous dictatorship for others. Though I guess the same could be said for the current 'elective dictatorship' we reside under. 

Edited 27 February 2018 by David Guiza

[EastAnglianFox]

17 hours ago, StanSP said:

reminds me of what I saw on 24 Hours in Police Custody (another great programme) the other week. Serving police officer found guilty of blackmail. Before he got caught and unknowingly to the other police officers on the team in charge of the case, he was put on the surveillance team for his own crime . 

 

?? That was hysterical, I was wondering for ages why the blackmailer wasnt picking up the money.

 

His face must have been an absolute picture when he was sent out on surveillance!

 

Chucked everything away that was good in his life just for the sake of a grand.

 

[stripeyfox]

23 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

So do you get your full wage for jury duty or not?  

 

EDIT: So looks like employers discretion

 

If not you end up with £32 - £64 a day depending on how long you are there for for the first 10 days and it increases there after.  Assuming that's tax free it's not that bad

I was fully paid by my employer, plus the court reimbursed my travel expenses AND they give you £6 a day to spend on lunch in the cafeteria (which is just for jurors). If you want you can take sandwiches and get to keep the £6/day at the end of the two weeks as well!
 

[Kopfkino]

6 hours ago, David Guiza said:

I read a book relatively recently about the problems with democracy (Jason Brennan - Against Democracy) and the proposal of alternatives, one of which being epistocracy. It's certainly an interesting debate; I generally find myself torn between thinking that it's a good idea and that it would work well and practice, but ultimately end up against as it would probably end up as a nirvana for some and a tyrannous dictatorship for others. Though I guess the same could be said for the current 'elective dictatorship' we reside under. 

 

Yeah I've heard of that book, not read it though. Democracy is inherently terrible and has mounting problems, but I still don't see an alternative. I can see the appeal of epistocracy, either through rule by experts or as an 'informed' version of democracy, but I'm not sure it's could be a good thing. I can only see that epistocracy effectively leads to a form of aristocracy; it would certainly need an absolutely rock-solid constitution. We've already moved further away from democracy towards a bit more epistocracy, at least some sort of quasi mix, with the delegation to independent regulatory agencies with mixed success.

 

As I read a while ago, it's the epistemic value of the procedure of juries or voting that matters as much as if the outcomes are absolutely good.

[Great Boos Up]

Absolute waste of tax payers money, and it's a lot of money. The whole system is mind boggling in expenses and costs and even if convicted there is no room for in our overcrowded jails to place anyone. Full of your average nosey gossip opinionated neighbours. There has to be a better way.

I'm fairly educated and reasonably intelligent to give a verdict listening to what information I am given but here is the problem.

Week one: I was not qualified to determine at what point stalking is worth of a guilty verdict. But I soon realised in my first week if we (the jury) keep deliberating all the best sandwiches are gone because the sandwich lady can't open the door during deliberation.

Week two: I have no idea what financial fraud really is and had expert after expert in court trying to explain what seemed like the old testament but with longer words. One member dropped out after a week and the whole thing had to start again from the beginning.

Estimated court time now 12 weeks; exit me too.

 

 

 

[Kopic]

I was up in court for a private prosecution a few years ago. Not a bad offence but the prosecution made the most of it (read: lied out their arses). Prosecution were backed by a billion pound company, I had ducking useless court appointed lawyer (who actually had a permanent eye patch). I had no intention of pleading guilty, mostly because of their lies (hugely exadurating my involvement etcetc), I hadn't actually done what I was charged with.

 

So it goes to trial, and it's jury selection time. In walk the worst group for my offence imaginable. Mostly old men (60+), some chavvy woman, full tracksuit warrior, who looked no older than 12, and two middle aged women. Now my offence was highly technical, and my lawyer was awful, even withholding evidence FROM ME that could have been used in defence (because he assumed it was useless), ended up giving it me the night before the trial, so my best bet was a jury of mostly young men who would actually understand the technicality/and probably done it themselves. 

 

Upon seeing the jury my lawyer convinced me to plead guilty and he promised to talk the prosecution down (I signed some paperwork outlining my offence etc), said I'd probably get suspended.

 

Then the sentencing comes, even more horrific lies by the prosecution (that my lawyer knew about but neglected to tell me in advance, so we couldn't argue in court about it), I get over 2 years sentence. For a young lad just out of uni it was pretty terrifying. 

 

So I don't like juries, although perhaps my gripe is more with public defenders.

 

Funnily enough during my time inside i saw tracksuit woman visiting her boyfriend who was in for attempted murder.

 

More amusingly, the main guy from the company that prosecuted me, who was at every court date, provided all evidence and wrote the outrageous victim impact statement which resulted in my sentence, recently got sacked and is under police investigation for mass embezzlement from said company and also perjury from a previous case - all details I am using in ongoing appeals. He was also declared bankrupt as the company took him to court to recoup the money. I must admit I was rather happy when I found that out, he's looking at more time than me.

Edited 27 February 2018 by Kopic

[leicsmac]

Bringing this back to the fore because the recent TV show on Channel 4 has brought up some discussion about juries on the TV thread...

 

The jury system is clearly deeply flawed in a lot of ways, mostly because of the way bias and stronger personalities work and how it is difficult without training to isolate oneself from those things and look at facts only.

 

Having said all that, is it still the best worst option that we have when it comes to deciding guilt or innocence?

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Bringing this back to the fore because the recent TV show on Channel 4 has brought up some discussion about juries on the TV thread...

 

The jury system is clearly deeply flawed in a lot of ways, mostly because of the way bias and stronger personalities work and how it is difficult without training to isolate oneself from those things and look at facts only.

 

Having said all that, is it still the best worst option that we have when it comes to deciding guilt or innocence?

Fascinating subject for me.  As I have been involved. My very quick take it's a bit of a game and largely down to your legal representative and your dynamic with them. 

 

As a teenager, rumble outside of the boozer. Arrested on the street. I didn't know how to play the game. Just wanted it over with. Told the police anything and everything (with no lawyer there, to try and get home before my mum and dad realised) . Belatedly got a brief ....my parents are old school, yes sir, no sir whatever you say sir type to 'better educated people'.... Long story short, ended up doing 8 weeks in a young offenders. 

 

Years later, was arrested the day after a shag. You can guess what I was accused of (total nonsense fwiw). Wasn't pleased, played it cool. Kept my head. Got a lawyer in station prior to interview and I effectively interviewed her before any police interview. Told her everything. Then asked her 'have I broke the law?' No. Can you get me off this? I should be able to. Cool. Over to you. Get me off this thing. Case dropped within 5 weeks. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Bringing this back to the fore because the recent TV show on Channel 4 has brought up some discussion about juries on the TV thread...

 

The jury system is clearly deeply flawed in a lot of ways, mostly because of the way bias and stronger personalities work and how it is difficult without training to isolate oneself from those things and look at facts only.

 

Having said all that, is it still the best worst option that we have when it comes to deciding guilt or innocence?

No.

 

Bring back the ducking stool!

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Fascinating subject for me.  As I have been involved. My very quick take it's a bit of a game and largely down to your legal representative and your dynamic with them. 

 

As a teenager, rumble outside of the boozer. Arrested on the street. I didn't know how to play the game. Just wanted it over with. Told the police anything and everything (with no lawyer there, to try and get home before my mum and dad realised) . Belatedly got a brief ....my parents are old school, yes sir, no sir whatever you say sir type to 'better educated people'.... Long story short, ended up doing 8 weeks in a young offenders. 

 

Years later, was arrested the day after a shag. You can guess what I was accused of (total nonsense fwiw). Wasn't pleased, played it cool. Kept my head. Got a lawyer in station prior to interview and I effectively interviewed her before any police interview. Told her everything. Then asked her 'have I broke the law?' No. Can you get me off this? I should be able to. Cool. Over to you. Get me off this thing. Case dropped within 5 weeks. 

The ducking stool would have sorted you out.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Fascinating subject for me.  As I have been involved. My very quick take it's a bit of a game and largely down to your legal representative and your dynamic with them. 

 

As a teenager, rumble outside of the boozer. Arrested on the street. I didn't know how to play the game. Just wanted it over with. Told the police anything and everything (with no lawyer there, to try and get home before my mum and dad realised) . Belatedly got a brief ....my parents are old school, yes sir, no sir whatever you say sir type to 'better educated people'.... Long story short, ended up doing 8 weeks in a young offenders. 

 

Years later, was arrested the day after a shag. You can guess what I was accused of (total nonsense fwiw). Wasn't pleased, played it cool. Kept my head. Got a lawyer in station prior to interview and I effectively interviewed her before any police interview. Told her everything. Then asked her 'have I broke the law?' No. Can you get me off this? I should be able to. Cool. Over to you. Get me off this thing. Case dropped within 5 weeks. 

Interesting thoughts.

 

As you say, the system seems very convoluted and fascinating at the same time.

[Paninistickers]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting thoughts.

 

As you say, the system seems very convoluted and fascinating at the same time.

Just to expand, the difference between the relationships with the two briefs were night and day, all down to a bit of experience (and not being panicked to rush things. It a why proper criminals do so well, they aren't shy of having to do, say, a year on remand. Normal people are) 

 

With my second lawyer, I questioned why she advised to say (or omit) this and that to understand the tactics....made us both justify in our minds what the plan was. And remember, I was innocent! - but a skilled brief makes sure you are watertight and knows what the police are looking for. But despite the pressure, I actually found the whole thing quite interesting...almost cathartic (having played a good hand 

So badly when I was in my teens). Felt like I was somehow fixing that debacle at the same time! 

Edited 2 March by Paninistickers

[nnfox]

Here's the thing... The jury system is a well oiled, tried and tested system that is largely reliable but there are some imperfections.  Realistically the best type of system might be some sort of mix and match.  Sometimes 12 reasonable members of the public are fine.  Sometimes a particularly complex case might benefit more from a bench of lay judges.

 

By the time a case gets to trial by jury, the evidence gathered will have been scrutinised by police, CPS, prosecution barristers and defence barristers.  After all of that, the CPS will believe that there is a realistic chance of prosecution.  There are varying degrees of certainty but in the vast majority of cases, the CPS are happy to proceed, in fact, the evidence is often so obvious, it is questionable as to what the point of the jury is at all.

 

The CPS would be seen to be a failure if cases were literally a coin toss and they had a 50% success rate - what a waste of public money and court time that would be.  They don't just rock up to court and see how it goes.

 

Some cases are particularly high profile or very complex/serious and CPS might be less sure of a (positive) outcome.  These are the cases where a panel of qualified judges might be a better option in the interest of justice.  Of course though, this may raise the issue if fairness of trial.  A defendant who is innocent until proven guilty would probably (if actually correctly accused) be better off rolling the dice and taking their chances with a jury - so who gets to decide?

 

[STEVIE B]

On 26/02/2018 at 18:35, stripeyfox said:

I did Jury Service in a few years back. I was really nervous about it but actually it was an amazing experience. I sat on three trials during the two weeks. A sex crime, a robbery and a burglary. In the sexual assault/rape trial it was really tough because between the "victim", the alleged offender and the main defence witness, none of their stories stacked up. It was interesting to see how when you retire to consider your verdict, the discussion can be dominated by the most vocal of the group. I was foreman of the jury (not by choice, but no one else wanted to do it) and I have to say that returning to the court to deliver a guilty verdict was the most nerve wracking experience of my life! The thing was that throughout the trial, you sit in the courtroom and there's not that many people in there - just the defendent and barristers and whoever is giving evidence. But when you go back to give the verdict, it is rammed with families of both sides, press etc. I was shitting myself and could not look the defendant in the eye as I replied to the judge's question "How do you find the defendant" with "Guilty"

 

But it was a really interesting experience and i'd love to do it again. But it really is a roll of the dice as to who you get. We had a woman on our jury who was clearly not "the full ticket" and understood little of what was going on. When asked about what her opinion was she just said "oh, I don't know. Whatever you think. He looks guilty to me"

 

Am still in contact with some of my fellow jurors. There's not many occasions in life when a group of people of all ages, both sexes and any walk of life are thrown together in a situation which most of them will never have been in before. Really great experience

 

Absolutely fascinating. Great post..........only taken 6 years to get any kind of response ! 

 

Edited 3 March by STEVIE B