Trial By Jury

Thor 2 · 19th May 2020, 04:50 PM

So what do others here think about trial by jury as being the best and fairest way to reach a verdict? From my youth I always thought it the obvious best, but with the passing of years and knowledge gained, I'm not so sure any more.

I think the guy in the street may not be the best judge in assessing evidence. Perhaps someone who has more expertise and less vulnerability, to the persuasive skills of talented lawyers, is better suited to the task. It is the knowledge of those innocents having been convicted and later released, that I read about, as well as personal experience in the witness box, leading me to this opinion.

Some years ago I was witness to a stabbing where the victim almost died. My recollection of the detail of the assault itself and the identity of the assailant was clear. The assailant was apprehended by the police and brought back to the scene of the crime where we, the witnesses, were.

After the assault the police (just one guy) was on the scene in minutes, told all present to say where we were, and set off in pursuit of the assailant. We, the witnesses, talked.

For some reason someone mentioned he thought the assailant wore glasses, and although I had no recollection of this, my mind put glasses on his head. They were there when I eventually made my statement to the police.

Some time later, giving evidence at the trial, the defence lawyer made a strong point about my making this observation (as it happened the guy was not wearing glasses), and cast doubt on the veracity of my evidence.

Chris_Halkides · 19th May 2020, 05:35 PM

For now I will confine myself to one narrow question. If I were a defendant with an alibi defense (especially if it were based on witnesses, not electronic evidence), I might opt for a bench trial, as opposed to a jury trial. Juries sometimes disregard strong alibi evidence, for example in the case of Russ Faria of Missouri in the United States. In his case the jury disregarded both witnesses and electronic evidence.

arthwollipot · 19th May 2020, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

So what do others here think about trial by jury as being the best and fairest way to reach a verdict? From my youth I always thought it the obvious best, but with the passing of years and knowledge gained, I'm not so sure any more.

I think the guy in the street may not be the best judge in assessing evidence. Perhaps someone who has more expertise and less vulnerability, to the persuasive skills of talented lawyers, is better suited to the task. It is the knowledge of those innocents having been convicted and later released, that I read about, as well as personal experience in the witness box, leading me to this opinion.

Some years ago I was witness to a stabbing where the victim almost died. My recollection of the detail of the assault itself and the identity of the assailant was clear. The assailant was apprehended by the police and brought back to the scene of the crime where we, the witnesses, were.

After the assault the police (just one guy) was on the scene in minutes, told all present to say where we were, and set off in pursuit of the assailant. We, the witnesses, talked.

For some reason someone mentioned he thought the assailant wore glasses, and although I had no recollection of this, my mind put glasses on his head. They were there when I eventually made my statement to the police.

Some time later, giving evidence at the trial, the defence lawyer made a strong point about my making this observation (as it happened the guy was not wearing glasses), and cast doubt on the veracity of my evidence.

Your anecdote establishes the unreliability of witnesses more than it establishes the unreliability of jurors.

Having sat on a jury myself (and been foreman since no-one else wanted the honour), I can say that the jury is not asked to assess the evidence, they are asked to assess the arguments. The evidence is there to support the arguments made by the lawyers, and prosecution and defence will present different evidence.

The other thing is that jurors are not asked to interpret the law. In fact, we were sent out to the jury room for a considerable time while the lawyers debated about a specific interpretation of the law (specifically, whether it is lawful to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest (turns out, it is)). When we were brought back to the courtroom, the judge gave us the interpretation of the court and we went on from there.

So my answer to your question is the same as Churchill's answer about democracy. Trial by jury is the worst justice system, apart from all those others that have been tried from time to time.

Thor 2 · 19th May 2020, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Your anecdote establishes the unreliability of witnesses more than it establishes the unreliability of jurors.

Having sat on a jury myself (and been foreman since no-one else wanted the honour), I can say that the jury is not asked to assess the evidence, they are asked to assess the arguments. The evidence is there to support the arguments made by the lawyers, and prosecution and defence will present different evidence.

The other thing is that jurors are not asked to interpret the law. In fact, we were sent out to the jury room for a considerable time while the lawyers debated about a specific interpretation of the law (specifically, whether it is lawful to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest (turns out, it is)). When we were brought back to the courtroom, the judge gave us the interpretation of the court and we went on from there.

So my answer to your question is the same as Churchill's answer about democracy. Trial by jury is the worst justice system, apart from all those others that have been tried from time to time.

No I think you missed the point I was trying to make and perhaps I made the point clumsily.

I was making the point the jury may have given less weight to my evidence than it deserved, because the lawyer, somewhat dishonestly, cast doubt on my testimony. The glasses on the assailants head was not of any significance and did not command my attention. What he said and did certainly commanded my attention and my recollection of this was very clear.

There is an example that comes to mind about this. Given by Richard Dawkins in one of his books as I recall:

Some people were asked to watch a video where a group of folk were passing an object, one to another, and count how many times it passed from hand to hand. During the video a man in a gorilla suit walked among the group. Non of the people watching the video saw the gorilla when asked. In my example above the glasses were the gorilla!

Loss Leader · 19th May 2020, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

No I think you missed the point I was trying to make and perhaps I made the point clumsily.

I was making the point the jury may have given less weight to my evidence than it deserved, because the lawyer, somewhat dishonestly, cast doubt on my testimony. The glasses on the assailants head was not of any significance and did not command my attention. What he said and did certainly commanded my attention and my recollection of this was very clear.

There is an example that comes to mind about this. Given by Richard Dawkins in one of his books as I recall:

Some people were asked to watch a video where a group of folk were passing an object, one to another, and count how many times it passed from hand to hand. During the video a man in a gorilla suit walked among the group. Non of the people watching the video saw the gorilla when asked. In my example above the glasses were the gorilla!

You're still just talking about the unreliability of eyewitness recollection.

You say the lawyer "somewhat dishonestly" called attention to your mistaken memory. I don't know what about this could be considered dishonest. He showed that you had made a mistake in a detail identifying the defendant. He then asked the jury to consider whether it was reasonable to conclude that other details of your testimony might also be false.

Heck, any defense lawyer with a wealthy enough client would bring in an expert to testify about just how badly memory works, especially when polluted with the suggestions of others.

I would imagine a jury, if anything, would be more forgiving and more swayed by eyewitnesses than a judge. A judge would have been exposed over and over to expert studies showing the unreliability of eyewitness memory.

Juries would be more apt to believe a witness like you (and to forgive one tiny detail) than a judge would.

smartcooky · 19th May 2020, 08:58 PM

One of the problems you get with juries is that they are (overall) truly a representation of the public. That means you will get people who are too dumb or too stupid to serve on a jury, who hate the police and the establishment or who love the police and the establishment, who are racists or bigots, or other undesirables, right down to people who just plain can't be arsed and don't even want to be there.

I read a few years ago a suggestion that jurors ought to be selected from a pool of volunteers, who need to pass a rudimentary IQ test and a psych evaluation to show that they are fit for duty. Having volunteers gets around the problem of people not wanting to be there.

arthwollipot · 19th May 2020, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

No I think you missed the point I was trying to make and perhaps I made the point clumsily.

I was making the point the jury may have given less weight to my evidence than it deserved, because the lawyer, somewhat dishonestly, cast doubt on my testimony. The glasses on the assailants head was not of any significance and did not command my attention. What he said and did certainly commanded my attention and my recollection of this was very clear.

Okay, but that still means that it is the lawyer that was unreliable and not the jury. The jury's duty is to listen to the lawyer's argument and come to a decision. It's not their fault if the lawyer's dishonest.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

There is an example that comes to mind about this. Given by Richard Dawkins in one of his books as I recall:

Some people were asked to watch a video where a group of folk were passing an object, one to another, and count how many times it passed from hand to hand. During the video a man in a gorilla suit walked among the group. Non of the people watching the video saw the gorilla when asked. In my example above the glasses were the gorilla!

That's a great study and everybody with an interest in skeptical thinking should be familiar with it. But again, I think it's an illustration of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony rather than of a jury.

If there is a weakness of the whole trial by jury system, it is that it relies too heavily on eyewitness testimony. But I think now that this is the point you were trying to make, and I unnecessarily focused too hard on the jury part and went off on a tangent.

arthwollipot · 19th May 2020, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

One of the problems you get with juries is that they are (overall) truly a representation of the public. That means you will get people who are too dumb or too stupid to serve on a jury, who hate the police and the establishment or who love the police and the establishment, who are racists or bigots, or other undesirables, right down to people who just plain can't be arsed and don't even want to be there.

I read a few years ago a suggestion that jurors ought to be selected from a pool of volunteers, who need to pass a rudimentary IQ test and a psych evaluation to show that they are fit for duty. Having volunteers gets around the problem of people not wanting to be there.

Remember that the American jury system includes voir dire, during which the lawyers can cross-examine potential jurors for reasons to reject them. Here in Australia, your name is called, you stand up, they take a look at you, and either of the lawyers can reject you. And if they don't, you join the jury. And that's it. No questions, no cross examination. Just stand up, yes or no.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this system. The advantage is that you do get a genuine cross section of society. The disadvantage is that you do get a genuine cross section of society.

psionl0 · 19th May 2020, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

So what do others here think about trial by jury as being the best and fairest way to reach a verdict?

Juries are not always the "best and fairest way to reach a verdict". That is why in high profile cases where there is a lot of public discussion about the case, a judge may prove more impartial than a jury.

However, one of the reasons for jury trials is to guard against corruption in the legal system. Every member of the legal system has a dog in the fight and interests of the system may be more important to them than the interests of the accused. Juries have no interest in protecting the legal system and are freer to decide a case on their own beliefs.

rjh01 · 20th May 2020, 04:22 AM

I would like to see a semi professional jury. The jury are given training on how to assess arguments and generally how to do their job. A person does not just sit on one trial, they do the job for a number of years.

Of course the people who sit on a jury would have to be their voluntarily. And probably paid.

The advantage here is that people would know what is significant and what is not. For example they would know that it is not important if a person is wearing glasses.

The Great Zaganza · 20th May 2020, 05:05 AM

Trial by Jury is a very bad system.
It is incredibly laborious, expensive and time-consuming, which is why Plea deals have become the norm.
It is also very prone to mistrials.

Many legal systems have lay assessors along with the judge, or multiple judges for a single case to make the system less dependent on a single person.
And, of course, hardly any nation with the Rule of Law elects their judges - that is a pretty bonkers system, basically (and sometimes litterally) begging to be corrupted.

Vixen · 20th May 2020, 05:23 AM

Trial by twelve of your peers has been shown throughout time to be the best system for weighing justice. In the case of identification parades, identifying someone would not be considered adequate evidence. In any eyewitness account, a court will be looking for corroborating evidence.

Chris_Halkides · 20th May 2020, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Some years ago I was witness to a stabbing where the victim almost died. My recollection of the detail of the assault itself and the identity of the assailant was clear. The assailant was apprehended by the police and brought back to the scene of the crime where we, the witnesses, were.

The kind of identification you mentioned above was bad practice on the part of the police. Line-ups with filler are the correct way to make or not to make an identification (reference available upon request). Had the defense lawyer challenged the identification on this point, he would have been on solid ground IMO. Whether a jury would or would not have understood and accepted this as a poor quality identification is an interesting question.

Now on to my main point. It is also asking quite a bit of juries to digest complex scientific evidence. The outstanding (in the bad sense of the word) example of this was the 2015 retrial of Mark Lundy. Not only was this a trial in which immunohistochemistry was used (an extreme rarity), but the prosecution chose to introduce mRNA evidence that was novel in the sense of not being peer reviewed in this specific application (the Lundy thread here has some discussion on both points). The mRNA evidence was later tossed by the appeals court. How a jury is supposed to decide between competing expert views when the science has not been thoroughly test driven is beyond me.

Thor 2 · 20th May 2020, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

You're still just talking about the unreliability of eyewitness recollection.

You say the lawyer "somewhat dishonestly" called attention to your mistaken memory. I don't know what about this could be considered dishonest. He showed that you had made a mistake in a detail identifying the defendant. He then asked the jury to consider whether it was reasonable to conclude that other details of your testimony might also be false.

Heck, any defense lawyer with a wealthy enough client would bring in an expert to testify about just how badly memory works, especially when polluted with the suggestions of others.

I would imagine a jury, if anything, would be more forgiving and more swayed by eyewitnesses than a judge. A judge would have been exposed over and over to expert studies showing the unreliability of eyewitness memory.

Juries would be more apt to believe a witness like you (and to forgive one tiny detail) than a judge would.

No argument from me regarding the unreliability of eye witness testimony. On the other hand this is the only testimony available in a number of cases, and the person or persons listening to the testimony must be able to weigh it effectively.

In the example I gave the identity of the assailant was never in question. He admitted to the assault and expressed remorse immediately after. The trial was about establishing wether the assault was premeditated or not. The state wanted attempted murder to stick and the defence wanted a lesser charge and hence sentence.

I, as a witness, heard clearly the damning and hatful words used by the assailant and saw the attack. This was the centre of my attention as I was only 2 - 3 metres away and looking in that direction. It was extremely loud and violent. Why would I be taking note of how the assailant was dressed or if he wore glasses?

My argument is that a jury can be swayed by a lawyer drawing attention to irrelevant discrepancies in detail whereas a professional, like a judge, may be more realistic about the value of my evidence.

I also think a professional would give more weight to scientific, or forensic, evidence also that a jury (of perhaps dimwits*), who don't understand the nature of this kind of evidence also.

* Having served on a few juries I can say this with authority.

theprestige · 20th May 2020, 02:31 PM

Why not both? I think a jury trial has merit, in principle and in practice. But I also think that having your case decided by a judge instead can certainly be an option if you want it.

Thor 2 · 20th May 2020, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, but that still means that it is the lawyer that was unreliable and not the jury. The jury's duty is to listen to the lawyer's argument and come to a decision. It's not their fault if the lawyer's dishonest.

I am not talking about fault here, I am talking about competency. The professional, like the judge, would not be swayed by the lawyer, clouding the issue by drawing attention to the flawed detail, about irrelevancies in my observation.

Quote:

That's a great study and everybody with an interest in skeptical thinking should be familiar with it. But again, I think it's an illustration of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony rather than of a jury.

This is where we differ (I am pleased we are back to squabbling again.

), as I think it illustrates what may be salient in eye witness testimony. Sometimes eye witness stuff is all we have and we have to measure it well.

Quote:

If there is a weakness of the whole trial by jury system, it is that it relies too heavily on eyewitness testimony. But I think now that this is the point you were trying to make, and I unnecessarily focused too hard on the jury part and went off on a tangent.

OK.

Thor 2 · 20th May 2020, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

The kind of identification you mentioned above was bad practice on the part of the police. Line-ups with filler are the correct way to make or not to make an identification (reference available upon request). Had the defense lawyer challenged the identification on this point, he would have been on solid ground IMO. Whether a jury would or would not have understood and accepted this as a poor quality identification is an interesting question.

The policeman in question wasn't seeking identification of the assailant (see above response to Loss Leader), he was only wanting testimony about the assault.

Quote:

Now on to my main point. It is also asking quite a bit of juries to digest complex scientific evidence. The outstanding (in the bad sense of the word) example of this was the 2015 retrial of Mark Lundy. Not only was this a trial in which immunohistochemistry was used (an extreme rarity), but the prosecution chose to introduce mRNA evidence that was novel in the sense of not being peer reviewed in this specific application (the Lundy thread here has some discussion on both points). The mRNA evidence was later tossed by the appeals court. How a jury is supposed to decide between competing expert views when the science has not been thoroughly test driven is beyond me.

Good point.

Thor 2 · 20th May 2020, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why not both? I think a jury trial has merit, in principle and in practice. But I also think that having your case decided by a judge instead can certainly be an option if you want it.

I suppose we could also throw in trial by ordeal as an option as well.

theprestige · 20th May 2020, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I suppose we could also throw in trial by ordeal as an option as well. : rolleyes :

I don't understand. Are you equating trial by jury or trial by judge to trial by ordeal?

Thor 2 · 20th May 2020, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't understand. Are you equating trial by jury or trial by judge to trial by ordeal?

I was just illustrating the silliness of your post.

The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix.

arthwollipot · 20th May 2020, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Trial by Jury is a very bad system.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Trial by twelve of your peers has been shown throughout time to be the best system for weighing justice.

I guess now that we have broad agreement, we can move on.

StillSleepy · 20th May 2020, 04:59 PM

Both would be an excluded middle, though, and it can have a number of flavors based on how either method is chosen per case.

The Atheist · 20th May 2020, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Trial by Jury is a very bad system.

I've been saying that for decades.

In NZ, thanks to appallingly low payments, juries are a mix of retirees, unemployed, civil servants and bank employees. Self-employed people almost never serve, along with company executives, doctors & scientists.

We people our juries with the dumbest people possible, then have the temerity to call it a jury of "peers".

Juries are a bad joke.

arthwollipot · 20th May 2020, 05:50 PM

I choose to ignore your characterisation of civil servants as among the dumbest people possible.

But you do raise a good point. Being self-employed means that for the duration of the trial you cannot work, and therefore cannot make money. I saw quite a few people get out of duty on those grounds. I'm a public servant, so I get paid leave if I'm called. Not everybody is that fortunate.

Chris_Halkides · 20th May 2020, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

For now I will confine myself to one narrow question. If I were a defendant with an alibi defense (especially if it were based on witnesses, not electronic evidence), I might opt for a bench trial, as opposed to a jury trial. Juries sometimes disregard strong alibi evidence, for example in the case of Russ Faria of Missouri in the United States. In his case the jury disregarded both witnesses and electronic evidence.

Link to Faria case here. Upon further reflection, there is plenty of blame to go around for his initial conviction, although some still resides with the jury.

Here is a case from New York City, in which alibi evidence was ignored in favor of shakier evidence.

The Atheist · 20th May 2020, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I choose to ignore your characterisation of civil servants as among the dumbest people possible.

It's not all of them, but overall, I can't think of a larger, more biased, ignorant, group than civil servants. It's been a home for the mentally deficient for many decades.

My old man was a civil servant for the last half-dozen years of his career, back in the '70s and I've seen nothing to indicate an improvement since then.

arthwollipot · 20th May 2020, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It's not all of them, but overall, I can't think of a larger, more biased, ignorant, group than civil servants. It's been a home for the mentally deficient for many decades.

My old man was a civil servant for the last half-dozen years of his career, back in the '70s and I've seen nothing to indicate an improvement since then.

It may be different in NZ, but as a lifetime resident of Canberra I can truly say that public servants can be some of the smartest and most compassionate people I know. But I don't want to harp on about it. Let's move on.

theprestige · 20th May 2020, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I was just illustrating the silliness of your post.

The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix.

I don't think either one is best in all situations. I think what is best is to have a system that makes use of both.

I think your question is like asking what's better, a doctor or a dentist? A destroyer or an aircraft carrier? A coupe or a ute? Carbs or proteins? My answer in all these cases is, "it depends, and a good system will make use of both."

And also, "why do you want to restrict it to one or the other? Why not have both?"

The Atheist · 20th May 2020, 08:51 PM

I find it somewhat surprising that after all the years I've been watching, we still haven't designed a foolproof method of establishing guilt.

arthwollipot · 20th May 2020, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I find it somewhat surprising that after all the years I've been watching, we still haven't designed a foolproof method of establishing guilt.

Which is why the "beyond reasonable doubt" stipulation exists. To have a foolproof method of establishing guilt, you'd need a time machine.

smartcooky · 20th May 2020, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

I would like to see a semi professional jury. The jury are given training on how to assess arguments and generally how to do their job. A person does not just sit on one trial, they do the job for a number of years.

Of course the people who sit on a jury would have to be their voluntarily. And probably paid.

The advantage here is that people would know what is significant and what is not. For example they would know that it is not important if a person is wearing glasses.

Nice movie reference there!

psionl0 · 21st May 2020, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I was just illustrating the silliness of your post.

The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix.

Why is the option of trial by judge alone "silly"? Because that option doesn't exist in Victoria?

Many a time, bad publicity about a case makes it almost impossible for an impartial jury to be selected. That's why in WA, the prosecution or the defence can request a trial by judge alone.

JoeMorgue · 21st May 2020, 06:17 AM

The idea of anything that even resembles a "Professional full time juror" fills me with deep dread. The absolute last thing our justice system needs is anything that resembles a real life version of the internet's "Miscarriage of justice fandom."

theprestige · 21st May 2020, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why is the option of trial by judge alone "silly"? Because that option doesn't exist in Victoria?

It's "silly" because Thor2 is looking for an exclusive answer: Which of the two is best? My answer is "silly" to him not because it says "judge", but because it says "both". Personally I think it's silly to exclude either one.

Chris_Halkides · 21st May 2020, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The idea of anything that even resembles a "Professional full time juror" fills me with deep dread. The absolute last thing our justice system needs is anything that resembles a real life version of the internet's "Miscarriage of justice fandom."

One might just as easily say, "The last thing that the criminal justice system needs is a professional class of authoritarian cheerleaders for police and prosecutors." Yet, you did not.

JoeMorgue · 21st May 2020, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

One might just as easily say, "The last thing that the criminal justice system needs is a professional class of authoritarian cheerleaders for police and prosecutors." Yet, you did not.

I don't want people riding the electric chair for doing a cartwheel. Sue me.

theprestige · 21st May 2020, 10:36 AM

Speaking of rides: Which is best for solving the Trolley Problem? A judge, or a jury?

wasapi · 21st May 2020, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I was just illustrating the silliness of your post.

The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix.

Sorry, I don't know why a legitimate question is, in your words, "silly"?

The Atheist · 21st May 2020, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why is the option of trial by judge alone "silly"?

Seems to work pretty well in NZ, where a lot of cases are trial by judge alone.

Also, on the idea of professional jurors, does anyone else see the irony that when jurors get it wrong and a case goes to appeal, it's decided by judges alone?

theprestige · 21st May 2020, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Seems to work pretty well in NZ, where a lot of cases are trial by judge alone.

Also, on the idea of professional jurors, does anyone else see the irony that when jurors get it wrong and a case goes to appeal, it's decided by judges alone?

In the US, appeals are generally about process failures, not disputes about the jury's decision as such. The verdict gets thrown out on appeal not because the jury made the "wrong" decision, but because they made "right" decision as the outcome of a flawed or incomplete legal process.

The appeals court is basically judges weighing in on matters of law and legal process, as subject matter experts. If the prosecution failed to prosecute according to the law, for example. Or if the defense got an acquittal because they withheld evidence they were required by law to produce. Etc.

This is less ironic, but more reasonable, in my opinion.

Is it different in NZ?

Do appeals courts have juries that weigh in on matters of legal process expertise? Do appeals generally focus on disputing the jury's verdict as such? Are appeals court judges ruling on the propriety of jury decisions in lower courts, rather than the propriety of the legal process of the trial?

19th May 2020, 04:50 PM	#1
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,177	Trial By Jury So what do others here think about trial by jury as being the best and fairest way to reach a verdict? From my youth I always thought it the obvious best, but with the passing of years and knowledge gained, I'm not so sure any more. I think the guy in the street may not be the best judge in assessing evidence. Perhaps someone who has more expertise and less vulnerability, to the persuasive skills of talented lawyers, is better suited to the task. It is the knowledge of those innocents having been convicted and later released, that I read about, as well as personal experience in the witness box, leading me to this opinion. Some years ago I was witness to a stabbing where the victim almost died. My recollection of the detail of the assault itself and the identity of the assailant was clear. The assailant was apprehended by the police and brought back to the scene of the crime where we, the witnesses, were. After the assault the police (just one guy) was on the scene in minutes, told all present to say where we were, and set off in pursuit of the assailant. We, the witnesses, talked. For some reason someone mentioned he thought the assailant wore glasses, and although I had no recollection of this, my mind put glasses on his head. They were there when I eventually made my statement to the police. Some time later, giving evidence at the trial, the defence lawyer made a strong point about my making this observation (as it happened the guy was not wearing glasses), and cast doubt on the veracity of my evidence.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

19th May 2020, 05:35 PM	#2
Chris_Halkides Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 9,702	alibi defenses For now I will confine myself to one narrow question. If I were a defendant with an alibi defense (especially if it were based on witnesses, not electronic evidence), I might opt for a bench trial, as opposed to a jury trial. Juries sometimes disregard strong alibi evidence, for example in the case of Russ Faria of Missouri in the United States. In his case the jury disregarded both witnesses and electronic evidence.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

19th May 2020, 05:48 PM	#3
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 66,855	Originally Posted by Thor 2 So what do others here think about trial by jury as being the best and fairest way to reach a verdict? From my youth I always thought it the obvious best, but with the passing of years and knowledge gained, I'm not so sure any more. I think the guy in the street may not be the best judge in assessing evidence. Perhaps someone who has more expertise and less vulnerability, to the persuasive skills of talented lawyers, is better suited to the task. It is the knowledge of those innocents having been convicted and later released, that I read about, as well as personal experience in the witness box, leading me to this opinion. Some years ago I was witness to a stabbing where the victim almost died. My recollection of the detail of the assault itself and the identity of the assailant was clear. The assailant was apprehended by the police and brought back to the scene of the crime where we, the witnesses, were. After the assault the police (just one guy) was on the scene in minutes, told all present to say where we were, and set off in pursuit of the assailant. We, the witnesses, talked. For some reason someone mentioned he thought the assailant wore glasses, and although I had no recollection of this, my mind put glasses on his head. They were there when I eventually made my statement to the police. Some time later, giving evidence at the trial, the defence lawyer made a strong point about my making this observation (as it happened the guy was not wearing glasses), and cast doubt on the veracity of my evidence. Your anecdote establishes the unreliability of witnesses more than it establishes the unreliability of jurors. Having sat on a jury myself (and been foreman since no-one else wanted the honour), I can say that the jury is not asked to assess the evidence, they are asked to assess the arguments. The evidence is there to support the arguments made by the lawyers, and prosecution and defence will present different evidence. The other thing is that jurors are not asked to interpret the law. In fact, we were sent out to the jury room for a considerable time while the lawyers debated about a specific interpretation of the law (specifically, whether it is lawful to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest (turns out, it is)). When we were brought back to the courtroom, the judge gave us the interpretation of the court and we went on from there. So my answer to your question is the same as Churchill's answer about democracy. Trial by jury is the worst justice system, apart from all those others that have been tried from time to time.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something. - Randall Munroe

19th May 2020, 06:09 PM	#4
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,177	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Your anecdote establishes the unreliability of witnesses more than it establishes the unreliability of jurors. Having sat on a jury myself (and been foreman since no-one else wanted the honour), I can say that the jury is not asked to assess the evidence, they are asked to assess the arguments. The evidence is there to support the arguments made by the lawyers, and prosecution and defence will present different evidence. The other thing is that jurors are not asked to interpret the law. In fact, we were sent out to the jury room for a considerable time while the lawyers debated about a specific interpretation of the law (specifically, whether it is lawful to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest (turns out, it is)). When we were brought back to the courtroom, the judge gave us the interpretation of the court and we went on from there. So my answer to your question is the same as Churchill's answer about democracy. Trial by jury is the worst justice system, apart from all those others that have been tried from time to time. No I think you missed the point I was trying to make and perhaps I made the point clumsily. I was making the point the jury may have given less weight to my evidence than it deserved, because the lawyer, somewhat dishonestly, cast doubt on my testimony. The glasses on the assailants head was not of any significance and did not command my attention. What he said and did certainly commanded my attention and my recollection of this was very clear. There is an example that comes to mind about this. Given by Richard Dawkins in one of his books as I recall: Some people were asked to watch a video where a group of folk were passing an object, one to another, and count how many times it passed from hand to hand. During the video a man in a gorilla suit walked among the group. Non of the people watching the video saw the gorilla when asked. In my example above the glasses were the gorilla!
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

19th May 2020, 06:20 PM	#5
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 27,522	Originally Posted by Thor 2 No I think you missed the point I was trying to make and perhaps I made the point clumsily. I was making the point the jury may have given less weight to my evidence than it deserved, because the lawyer, somewhat dishonestly, cast doubt on my testimony. The glasses on the assailants head was not of any significance and did not command my attention. What he said and did certainly commanded my attention and my recollection of this was very clear. There is an example that comes to mind about this. Given by Richard Dawkins in one of his books as I recall: Some people were asked to watch a video where a group of folk were passing an object, one to another, and count how many times it passed from hand to hand. During the video a man in a gorilla suit walked among the group. Non of the people watching the video saw the gorilla when asked. In my example above the glasses were the gorilla! You're still just talking about the unreliability of eyewitness recollection. You say the lawyer "somewhat dishonestly" called attention to your mistaken memory. I don't know what about this could be considered dishonest. He showed that you had made a mistake in a detail identifying the defendant. He then asked the jury to consider whether it was reasonable to conclude that other details of your testimony might also be false. Heck, any defense lawyer with a wealthy enough client would bring in an expert to testify about just how badly memory works, especially when polluted with the suggestions of others. I would imagine a jury, if anything, would be more forgiving and more swayed by eyewitnesses than a judge. A judge would have been exposed over and over to expert studies showing the unreliability of eyewitness memory. Juries would be more apt to believe a witness like you (and to forgive one tiny detail) than a judge would.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

19th May 2020, 08:58 PM	#6
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 14,310	One of the problems you get with juries is that they are (overall) truly a representation of the public. That means you will get people who are too dumb or too stupid to serve on a jury, who hate the police and the establishment or who love the police and the establishment, who are racists or bigots, or other undesirables, right down to people who just plain can't be arsed and don't even want to be there. I read a few years ago a suggestion that jurors ought to be selected from a pool of volunteers, who need to pass a rudimentary IQ test and a psych evaluation to show that they are fit for duty. Having volunteers gets around the problem of people not wanting to be there.
	__________________ "Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

19th May 2020, 09:05 PM	#7
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 66,855	Originally Posted by Thor 2 No I think you missed the point I was trying to make and perhaps I made the point clumsily. I was making the point the jury may have given less weight to my evidence than it deserved, because the lawyer, somewhat dishonestly, cast doubt on my testimony. The glasses on the assailants head was not of any significance and did not command my attention. What he said and did certainly commanded my attention and my recollection of this was very clear. Okay, but that still means that it is the lawyer that was unreliable and not the jury. The jury's duty is to listen to the lawyer's argument and come to a decision. It's not their fault if the lawyer's dishonest. Originally Posted by Thor 2 There is an example that comes to mind about this. Given by Richard Dawkins in one of his books as I recall: Some people were asked to watch a video where a group of folk were passing an object, one to another, and count how many times it passed from hand to hand. During the video a man in a gorilla suit walked among the group. Non of the people watching the video saw the gorilla when asked. In my example above the glasses were the gorilla! That's a great study and everybody with an interest in skeptical thinking should be familiar with it. But again, I think it's an illustration of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony rather than of a jury. If there is a weakness of the whole trial by jury system, it is that it relies too heavily on eyewitness testimony. But I think now that this is the point you were trying to make, and I unnecessarily focused too hard on the jury part and went off on a tangent.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something. - Randall Munroe

19th May 2020, 09:29 PM	#8
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 66,855	Originally Posted by smartcooky One of the problems you get with juries is that they are (overall) truly a representation of the public. That means you will get people who are too dumb or too stupid to serve on a jury, who hate the police and the establishment or who love the police and the establishment, who are racists or bigots, or other undesirables, right down to people who just plain can't be arsed and don't even want to be there. I read a few years ago a suggestion that jurors ought to be selected from a pool of volunteers, who need to pass a rudimentary IQ test and a psych evaluation to show that they are fit for duty. Having volunteers gets around the problem of people not wanting to be there. Remember that the American jury system includes voir dire, during which the lawyers can cross-examine potential jurors for reasons to reject them. Here in Australia, your name is called, you stand up, they take a look at you, and either of the lawyers can reject you. And if they don't, you join the jury. And that's it. No questions, no cross examination. Just stand up, yes or no. There are advantages and disadvantages to this system. The advantage is that you do get a genuine cross section of society. The disadvantage is that you do get a genuine cross section of society.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something. - Randall Munroe

19th May 2020, 10:40 PM	#9
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 16,284	Originally Posted by Thor 2 So what do others here think about trial by jury as being the best and fairest way to reach a verdict? Juries are not always the "best and fairest way to reach a verdict". That is why in high profile cases where there is a lot of public discussion about the case, a judge may prove more impartial than a jury. However, one of the reasons for jury trials is to guard against corruption in the legal system. Every member of the legal system has a dog in the fight and interests of the system may be more important to them than the interests of the accused. Juries have no interest in protecting the legal system and are freer to decide a case on their own beliefs.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

20th May 2020, 04:22 AM	#10
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 25,724	I would like to see a semi professional jury. The jury are given training on how to assess arguments and generally how to do their job. A person does not just sit on one trial, they do the job for a number of years. Of course the people who sit on a jury would have to be their voluntarily. And probably paid. The advantage here is that people would know what is significant and what is not. For example they would know that it is not important if a person is wearing glasses.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

20th May 2020, 05:05 AM	#11
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 11,649	Trial by Jury is a very bad system. It is incredibly laborious, expensive and time-consuming, which is why Plea deals have become the norm. It is also very prone to mistrials. Many legal systems have lay assessors along with the judge, or multiple judges for a single case to make the system less dependent on a single person. And, of course, hardly any nation with the Rule of Law elects their judges - that is a pretty bonkers system, basically (and sometimes litterally) begging to be corrupted.
	__________________ ETTD Everything Trump Touches Dies

20th May 2020, 05:23 AM	#12
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 18,410	Trial by twelve of your peers has been shown throughout time to be the best system for weighing justice. In the case of identification parades, identifying someone would not be considered adequate evidence. In any eyewitness account, a court will be looking for corroborating evidence.
	__________________ Fight the good fight with all thy might!

20th May 2020, 11:49 AM	#13
Chris_Halkides Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 9,702	Can a jury weigh competing scientific testimony Originally Posted by Thor 2 Some years ago I was witness to a stabbing where the victim almost died. My recollection of the detail of the assault itself and the identity of the assailant was clear. The assailant was apprehended by the police and brought back to the scene of the crime where we, the witnesses, were. The kind of identification you mentioned above was bad practice on the part of the police. Line-ups with filler are the correct way to make or not to make an identification (reference available upon request). Had the defense lawyer challenged the identification on this point, he would have been on solid ground IMO. Whether a jury would or would not have understood and accepted this as a poor quality identification is an interesting question. Now on to my main point. It is also asking quite a bit of juries to digest complex scientific evidence. The outstanding (in the bad sense of the word) example of this was the 2015 retrial of Mark Lundy. Not only was this a trial in which immunohistochemistry was used (an extreme rarity), but the prosecution chose to introduce mRNA evidence that was novel in the sense of not being peer reviewed in this specific application (the Lundy thread here has some discussion on both points). The mRNA evidence was later tossed by the appeals court. How a jury is supposed to decide between competing expert views when the science has not been thoroughly test driven is beyond me.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 20th May 2020 at 11:55 AM.

20th May 2020, 02:27 PM	#14
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,177	Originally Posted by Loss Leader You're still just talking about the unreliability of eyewitness recollection. You say the lawyer "somewhat dishonestly" called attention to your mistaken memory. I don't know what about this could be considered dishonest. He showed that you had made a mistake in a detail identifying the defendant. He then asked the jury to consider whether it was reasonable to conclude that other details of your testimony might also be false. Heck, any defense lawyer with a wealthy enough client would bring in an expert to testify about just how badly memory works, especially when polluted with the suggestions of others. I would imagine a jury, if anything, would be more forgiving and more swayed by eyewitnesses than a judge. A judge would have been exposed over and over to expert studies showing the unreliability of eyewitness memory. Juries would be more apt to believe a witness like you (and to forgive one tiny detail) than a judge would. No argument from me regarding the unreliability of eye witness testimony. On the other hand this is the only testimony available in a number of cases, and the person or persons listening to the testimony must be able to weigh it effectively. In the example I gave the identity of the assailant was never in question. He admitted to the assault and expressed remorse immediately after. The trial was about establishing wether the assault was premeditated or not. The state wanted attempted murder to stick and the defence wanted a lesser charge and hence sentence. I, as a witness, heard clearly the damning and hatful words used by the assailant and saw the attack. This was the centre of my attention as I was only 2 - 3 metres away and looking in that direction. It was extremely loud and violent. Why would I be taking note of how the assailant was dressed or if he wore glasses? My argument is that a jury can be swayed by a lawyer drawing attention to irrelevant discrepancies in detail whereas a professional, like a judge, may be more realistic about the value of my evidence. I also think a professional would give more weight to scientific, or forensic, evidence also that a jury (of perhaps dimwits), who don't understand the nature of this kind of evidence also. Having served on a few juries I can say this with authority.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

20th May 2020, 02:31 PM	#15
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 44,597	Why not both? I think a jury trial has merit, in principle and in practice. But I also think that having your case decided by a judge instead can certainly be an option if you want it.

20th May 2020, 02:44 PM	#16
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,177	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Okay, but that still means that it is the lawyer that was unreliable and not the jury. The jury's duty is to listen to the lawyer's argument and come to a decision. It's not their fault if the lawyer's dishonest. I am not talking about fault here, I am talking about competency. The professional, like the judge, would not be swayed by the lawyer, clouding the issue by drawing attention to the flawed detail, about irrelevancies in my observation. Quote: That's a great study and everybody with an interest in skeptical thinking should be familiar with it. But again, I think it's an illustration of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony rather than of a jury. This is where we differ (I am pleased we are back to squabbling again. ), as I think it illustrates what may be salient in eye witness testimony. Sometimes eye witness stuff is all we have and we have to measure it well. Quote: If there is a weakness of the whole trial by jury system, it is that it relies too heavily on eyewitness testimony. But I think now that this is the point you were trying to make, and I unnecessarily focused too hard on the jury part and went off on a tangent. OK.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

20th May 2020, 02:51 PM	#17
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,177	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides The kind of identification you mentioned above was bad practice on the part of the police. Line-ups with filler are the correct way to make or not to make an identification (reference available upon request). Had the defense lawyer challenged the identification on this point, he would have been on solid ground IMO. Whether a jury would or would not have understood and accepted this as a poor quality identification is an interesting question. The policeman in question wasn't seeking identification of the assailant (see above response to Loss Leader), he was only wanting testimony about the assault. Quote: Now on to my main point. It is also asking quite a bit of juries to digest complex scientific evidence. The outstanding (in the bad sense of the word) example of this was the 2015 retrial of Mark Lundy. Not only was this a trial in which immunohistochemistry was used (an extreme rarity), but the prosecution chose to introduce mRNA evidence that was novel in the sense of not being peer reviewed in this specific application (the Lundy thread here has some discussion on both points). The mRNA evidence was later tossed by the appeals court. How a jury is supposed to decide between competing expert views when the science has not been thoroughly test driven is beyond me. Good point.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

20th May 2020, 02:52 PM	#18
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,177	Originally Posted by theprestige Why not both? I think a jury trial has merit, in principle and in practice. But I also think that having your case decided by a judge instead can certainly be an option if you want it. I suppose we could also throw in trial by ordeal as an option as well.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

20th May 2020, 03:08 PM	#19
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 44,597	Originally Posted by Thor 2 I suppose we could also throw in trial by ordeal as an option as well. : rolleyes : I don't understand. Are you equating trial by jury or trial by judge to trial by ordeal?

20th May 2020, 04:45 PM	#20
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,177	Originally Posted by theprestige I don't understand. Are you equating trial by jury or trial by judge to trial by ordeal? I was just illustrating the silliness of your post. The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

20th May 2020, 04:54 PM	#21
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 66,855	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Trial by Jury is a very bad system. Originally Posted by Vixen Trial by twelve of your peers has been shown throughout time to be the best system for weighing justice. I guess now that we have broad agreement, we can move on.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something. - Randall Munroe

20th May 2020, 04:59 PM	#22
StillSleepy Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2020 Location: Where the wild goose goes Posts: 361	Both would be an excluded middle, though, and it can have a number of flavors based on how either method is chosen per case.
	__________________ I just want some outdoors left to enjoy. "Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." ~ Patrick F. McManus, “Never Sniff A Gift Fish”

20th May 2020, 05:05 PM	#23
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 25,487	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Trial by Jury is a very bad system. I've been saying that for decades. In NZ, thanks to appallingly low payments, juries are a mix of retirees, unemployed, civil servants and bank employees. Self-employed people almost never serve, along with company executives, doctors & scientists. We people our juries with the dumbest people possible, then have the temerity to call it a jury of "peers". Juries are a bad joke.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

20th May 2020, 05:50 PM	#24
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 66,855	I choose to ignore your characterisation of civil servants as among the dumbest people possible. But you do raise a good point. Being self-employed means that for the duration of the trial you cannot work, and therefore cannot make money. I saw quite a few people get out of duty on those grounds. I'm a public servant, so I get paid leave if I'm called. Not everybody is that fortunate.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something. - Randall Munroe

20th May 2020, 07:04 PM	#25
Chris_Halkides Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 9,702	A link to the Russell Faria case; a different rejected alibi defense Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides For now I will confine myself to one narrow question. If I were a defendant with an alibi defense (especially if it were based on witnesses, not electronic evidence), I might opt for a bench trial, as opposed to a jury trial. Juries sometimes disregard strong alibi evidence, for example in the case of Russ Faria of Missouri in the United States. In his case the jury disregarded both witnesses and electronic evidence. Link to Faria case here. Upon further reflection, there is plenty of blame to go around for his initial conviction, although some still resides with the jury. Here is a case from New York City, in which alibi evidence was ignored in favor of shakier evidence.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

20th May 2020, 07:17 PM	#26
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 25,487	Originally Posted by arthwollipot I choose to ignore your characterisation of civil servants as among the dumbest people possible. It's not all of them, but overall, I can't think of a larger, more biased, ignorant, group than civil servants. It's been a home for the mentally deficient for many decades. My old man was a civil servant for the last half-dozen years of his career, back in the '70s and I've seen nothing to indicate an improvement since then.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

20th May 2020, 07:20 PM	#27
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 66,855	Originally Posted by The Atheist It's not all of them, but overall, I can't think of a larger, more biased, ignorant, group than civil servants. It's been a home for the mentally deficient for many decades. My old man was a civil servant for the last half-dozen years of his career, back in the '70s and I've seen nothing to indicate an improvement since then. It may be different in NZ, but as a lifetime resident of Canberra I can truly say that public servants can be some of the smartest and most compassionate people I know. But I don't want to harp on about it. Let's move on.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something. - Randall Munroe

20th May 2020, 07:54 PM	#28
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 44,597	Originally Posted by Thor 2 I was just illustrating the silliness of your post. The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix. I don't think either one is best in all situations. I think what is best is to have a system that makes use of both. I think your question is like asking what's better, a doctor or a dentist? A destroyer or an aircraft carrier? A coupe or a ute? Carbs or proteins? My answer in all these cases is, "it depends, and a good system will make use of both." And also, "why do you want to restrict it to one or the other? Why not have both?"

20th May 2020, 08:51 PM	#29
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 25,487	I find it somewhat surprising that after all the years I've been watching, we still haven't designed a foolproof method of establishing guilt.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

20th May 2020, 09:04 PM	#30
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 66,855	Originally Posted by The Atheist I find it somewhat surprising that after all the years I've been watching, we still haven't designed a foolproof method of establishing guilt. Which is why the "beyond reasonable doubt" stipulation exists. To have a foolproof method of establishing guilt, you'd need a time machine.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something. - Randall Munroe

20th May 2020, 09:08 PM	#31
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 14,310	Originally Posted by rjh01 I would like to see a semi professional jury. The jury are given training on how to assess arguments and generally how to do their job. A person does not just sit on one trial, they do the job for a number of years. Of course the people who sit on a jury would have to be their voluntarily. And probably paid. The advantage here is that people would know what is significant and what is not. For example they would know that it is not important if a person is wearing glasses. Nice movie reference there!
	__________________ "Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

21st May 2020, 05:40 AM	#32
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 16,284	Originally Posted by Thor 2 I was just illustrating the silliness of your post. The discussion is about whether trial by jury or by judge is best and you throw in the inane comment that we should have both. Hence my sarcastic response of throwing "trial by ordeal" into the mix. Why is the option of trial by judge alone "silly"? Because that option doesn't exist in Victoria? Many a time, bad publicity about a case makes it almost impossible for an impartial jury to be selected. That's why in WA, the prosecution or the defence can request a trial by judge alone.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

21st May 2020, 06:17 AM	#33
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 24,813	The idea of anything that even resembles a "Professional full time juror" fills me with deep dread. The absolute last thing our justice system needs is anything that resembles a real life version of the internet's "Miscarriage of justice fandom."
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

21st May 2020, 06:31 AM	#34
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 44,597	Originally Posted by psionl0 Why is the option of trial by judge alone "silly"? Because that option doesn't exist in Victoria? It's "silly" because Thor2 is looking for an exclusive answer: Which of the two is best? My answer is "silly" to him not because it says "judge", but because it says "both". Personally I think it's silly to exclude either one.

21st May 2020, 10:08 AM	#35
Chris_Halkides Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 9,702	The opposite would be at least as bad Originally Posted by JoeMorgue The idea of anything that even resembles a "Professional full time juror" fills me with deep dread. The absolute last thing our justice system needs is anything that resembles a real life version of the internet's "Miscarriage of justice fandom." One might just as easily say, "The last thing that the criminal justice system needs is a professional class of authoritarian cheerleaders for police and prosecutors." Yet, you did not.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)