Gobsmacked - The Jury Murder Trial - should we have professional Jurors?

[Hotwired]

So you would be pleased for some boomers to judge you who haven't got a clue?
The rest of your life depends on these people to make the right judgement and you aren't bothered
Wow.

What if the right judgement is to jail you for life with all appeals to go direct to the home secretary to use as toilet paper.

Someone would have to be quite wrong in the head to be guilty and hoping to be found guilty, after putting in a not guilty plea.

I would call it completely normal for anyone to hope they get no punishment and get to go home whether it's a deserved outcome or not.

And because of that I would expect anyone to take the option of a trial type with the best odds for them.

 

[Mr Badger]

What if the right judgement is to jail you for life with all appeals to go direct to the home secretary to use as toilet paper.

Someone would have to be quite wrong in the head to be guilty and hoping to be found guilty, after putting in a not guilty plea.

I would call it completely normal for anyone to hope they get no punishment and get to go home whether it's a deserved outcome or not.

And because of that I would expect anyone to take the option of a trial type with the best odds for them.

They should just bring back recognising the buying of indulgences.

 

[Hotwired]

They should just bring back recognising the buying of indulgences.

I thought that was about bunging the minions of the pope a few quid to buy a clean conscience, not a way to get out of laws of the land.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I thought that was about bunging the minions of the pope a few quid to buy a clean conscience, not a way to get out of laws of the land.

Time was they were pretty much one and the same.

 

[BUDFORCE]

So in the real case, the jury gave what you feel was an appropriate judgement. Meanwhile in the tv show that was designed to variously entertain, foster outrage, get the job done in 4 hours flat, etc. they came to a stupid decision?

Hard to believe.

Yes, quite.

 

[jaybee]

I've just watched series 2 in full. (Not seen first season as watched 2nd with Mrs as she'd seen the first, but they are completely different cases). My thoughts are that it was a real eye opener to jury service which I've never done.

To answer the OP, we can't have "professional" jurors because there is no such thing. How would you define one to be so? A jury is meant to be a snapshot of society including people from different backgrounds/experiences/lives in order to average out views and hence decisions.

Having said that, I take major issues with some of the people that were on that jury. Now, most of the issues are just to do with their characters which can't be changed (more on that below) but what can be changed, is people should be told in general terms what the case is about and then asked again whether there are any reasons as to why they would be bias. As an example, there was a women on there that had pretty much took pity on the women from the first minute and was always going to vote for acquittal. What did she do for a living? She worked with domestic abuse cases FFS.
Then there was another couple of women who were speaking of major previous domestic issues. There was also 2 guys who had also suffered previously with similar.

There were a couple of people that very stubbornly had made their decisions early and were very closed minded. They bullied and over voiced other people when their opinion was challenged. I feel that less strong, more introverted people are less likely to offer their full opinion in the climate of the room with shouty, "I'm right" types. It was really concerning to see how stupid some people can be as well.

Overall it left me concerned that the AVERAGE jury will contain people that are simply unfit to form reasonable opinions (BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN) in a team, but I don't have an answer or solution, other than to introduce basic aptitude tests and/or filter based on conflicting past experiences.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Yes, quite.

It lasted two weeks and they had to hear all the evidence of the real trial and condensed it down to 4x 1hr episodes, I did say that above.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I've just watched series 2 in full. (Not seen first season as watched 2nd with Mrs as she'd seen the first, but they are completely different cases). My thoughts are that it was a real eye opener to jury service which I've never done.

To answer the OP, we can't have "professional" jurors because there is no such thing. How would you define one to be so? A jury is meant to be a snapshot of society including people from different backgrounds/experiences/lives in order to average out views and hence decisions.

Having said that, I take major issues with some of the people that were on that jury. Now, most of the issues are just to do with their characters which can't be changed (more on that below) but what can be changed, is people should be told in general terms what the case is about and then asked again whether there are any reasons as to why they would be bias. As an example, there was a women on there that had pretty much took pity on the women from the first minute and was always going to vote for acquittal. What did she do for a living? She worked with domestic abuse cases FFS.
Then there was another couple of women who were speaking of major previous domestic issues. There was also 2 guys who had also suffered previously with similar.

There were a couple of people that very stubbornly had made their decisions early and were very closed minded. They bullied and over voiced other people when their opinion was challenged. I feel that less strong, more introverted people are less likely to offer their full opinion in the climate of the room with shouty, "I'm right" types. It was really concerning to see how stupid some people can be as well.

Overall it left me concerned that the AVERAGE jury will contain people that are simply unfit to form reasonable opinions (BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN) in a team, but I don't have an answer or solution, other than to introduce basic aptitude tests and/or filter based on conflicting past experiences.

Look at post #6 above by Slam62, that's what he experienced in a real court.

Let's also acknowledge that even though they eventually voted 10 to 2 for manslaughter, the real case was murder however after watching that they could have got it wrong.
They could have had 10 Jurors like the old bloke and the horrible Scouse woman who never once detracted from murder.
They could have shown 100% evidence it wasn't murder and both of them wouldn't have it.
Same for her in pink, no matter how guilty the accused was she wouldn't have it either.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The question you have to ask yourself is, would it have been as interesting if they’d came to the exact same conclusion as in the real trial? Would people have bothered watching? Would it get you talking about it?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

The question you have to ask yourself is, would it have been as interesting if they’d came to the exact same conclusion as in the real trial? Would people have bothered watching? Would it get you talking about it?

Yes because what amazed me was it was a hung jury, then they all went in to get some kind of verdict which meant the 2 who said murder changed their minds and three that said acquittal changed their minds just to get a verdict.
Respect for the two who stood their ground for acquittal and refused to budge.

I'm shocked this happens in a Jury Room and Slam62 above experienced it.

 

[throwaway4372]

If we had basic aptitude tests we could use them to determine who can vote in elections

(and we do have basic aptitude tests, they're called degrees)

 

[jaybee]

The question you have to ask yourself is, would it have been as interesting if they’d came to the exact same conclusion as in the real trial? Would people have bothered watching? Would it get you talking about it?

Yes. It would have been interesting whatever decision they came to. The whole point is to see the process as to how they arrive at a decision, whichever it may be.

 

[shifty_uk]

A quote from a review the Guardian did on the show:

Of course, every faux-juror has something in common that their real counterparts don’t: they are all prepared to appear on reality TV. Yet, while series one had some big personalities, it was a generally civil affair. This time, we get distracting tantrums, squabbles and cliquiness.

Sadly this is what puts me off a show like this, it’s not really ‘reality’, it’s well cast and produced for maximum impact upon broadcasting. Understandably so.

 

[jaybee]

Yes because what amazed me was it was a hung jury, then they all went in to get some kind of verdict which meant the 2 who said murder changed their minds and three that said acquittal changed their minds just to get a verdict.
Respect for the two who stood their ground for acquittal and refused to budge.

I'm shocked this happens in a Jury Room and Slam62 above experienced it.

I wasnt shocked per say. Disappointed that there is a push to get a verdict. That one should have just accepted hung jury. It was completely split from the off with murder, acquittal, manslaughter and even an "unsure". In fact that was the very best example of a time when a whole retrial should have been had with a different jury imo.

 

[jaybee]

A quote from a review the Guardian did on the show:



Sadly this is what puts me off a show like this, it’s not really ‘reality’, it’s well cast and produced for maximum impact upon broadcasting. Understandably so.

A fair point. Are people that are happy to appear on reality TV, representative of an average jury. Probably not.

 

[bazzabear]

From my single experience of Jury service, I would say my fellow jurors were absolutely terrible, they were bullies mostly and generally extremely thick, more concerned about getting away for their social life than a correct verdict.

I say if you ever come before such a jury good luck to you. But they’ll probably let you off so they can get home for tea.

I would echo this. I've done jury service once, when I was very young.

One of the jurors was unwilling to say guilty because her understanding of "you must be certain they are guilty" was that she would have had to see it happen.

But the worst thing was the 3 or 4 other members of the jury who tried to bully her into voting guilty anyway because "the judge will eventually allow a non unanimous verdict anyway, so you'll save us all sitting here for ages."
I don't recall anyone even trying to convince her based on the actual evidence.

The self appointed foreman confidently declared to the judge that we had a unanimous verdict when we didn't, which somewhat ruined the solemnity of the court when a load of us had to shout up that he was wrong.

And in case you think that only the jury were unprofessional - the defendant (for a violent crime) and his brother were both able to stand in the doorway the jury used each morning to enter the building scowling at everybody threateningly. Oh, and the clerk of the court, after the case was over, told us all (as he absolutely shouldn't have been doing) that they were both back in court the next week - for jury intimidation (which, since that wasn't us, also means that they had at least one other court case in the recent past).

Basically the whole thing was a bit of a debacle, and at least half of the jury were completely unsuitable to be involved in a decision of that magnitude.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

If we had basic aptitude tests we could use them to determine who can vote in elections

(and we do have basic aptitude tests, they're called degrees)

I still hadn't got a clue but then again I only saw 4 hours of a 2 week trial.
My brother in law is a Professor, he can't even use a mouse or wire a 13A plug, a degree doesn't mean you've got any sense.

Also add to that I work on many cases that go to court, I get to read all the evidence and many years ago I stopped guessing which way the trials would go because I was wrong so many times.

 

[Cob]

So you would be pleased for some boomers to judge you who haven't got a clue?
The rest of your life depends on these people to make the right judgement and you aren't bothered
Wow.

That’s how it has worked for the last 1,000 years.

Have you stopped to think who’s behind this call to abandon juries of your peers in favour of a tribunal that can and WILL be hugely influenced by government of the day?

 

[Mr Badger]

I still hadn't got a clue but then again I only saw 4 hours of a 2 week trial.
My brother in law is a Professor, he can't even use a mouse or wire a 13A plug, a degree doesn't mean you've got any sense.

Also add to that I work on many cases that go to court, I get to read all the evidence and many years ago I stopped guessing which way the trials would go because I was wrong so many times.

I agree that having advanced academic qualifications doesn't guarantee you are a fully rounded individual. I've worked with a few well qualified oddballs, including one guy who had a PhD in String Theory but struggled to maintain any concentration on everyday tasks. This meant that despite his obvious intelligence and being paid a good salary, he couldn't be left to work unsupervised. These days he would doubtless be considered "on the spectrum". I can absolutely imagine him day dreaming and falling asleep during a trial.

However, qualifications are at least an indication of the ability to take onboard information. Perhaps jurors should be required to hold some basic qualifications e.g. Level 2 and failing that pass an appropriate aptitude/IQ test to prove that they aren't a full on thicko.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

That’s how it has worked for the last 1,000 years.

So you are happy for an idiot like me to Judge the rest of your life because we've done it for a 1000 years - WOW.

Have you stopped to think who’s behind this call to abandon juries of your peers in favour of a tribunal that can and WILL be hugely influenced by government of the day?

I have no idea what you're on about.