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

Yes, yes I am.

I’ve already explained to you several times why I think it’s a terrible idea to be judged by a government appointed tribunal, but clearly your brain is just stuck in a ‘everyone is a moron’ loop because you can’t tell the difference between a reality TV show and actual reality.
 
Cob said:
Yes, yes I am.

I’ve already explained to you several times why I think it’s a terrible idea to be judged by a government appointed tribunal, but clearly your brain is just stuck in a ‘everyone is a moron’ loop because you can’t tell the difference between a reality TV show and actual reality.
Click to expand...

and you're stuck in a loop because two members on here have described their experience was like that but you're just thinking "TV Reality" so not real.
I get what you're implying but in their case it happened unless you want to call them liars.
 
Last edited:
SexyGreyFox said:
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.
Click to expand...
A "smart" person can still be influenced by prejudice, biases, lack of emapathy, boredom and a can't be arsed attitude.

What I think you actually want is some sort of way to ensure all member of a Jury are motivated to exercise a judgement to the best of their abilities.
 
jaybee said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean it is a TV series, could they purposely have planted some tosspots in it for engagement or drama?
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
I mean it is a TV series, could they purposely have planted some tosspots in it for engagement or drama?
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to hear how the jury was selected. Ideally, it would have been like in real life, but I expect channel 4 may have had way more than 12 people to select from who were legible, and they went with a selection which would have maximised conflict deliberately.
 
jaybee said:
I'd be interested to hear how the jury was selected. Ideally, it would have been like in real life, but I expect channel 4 may have had way more than 12 people to select from who were legible, and they went with a selection which would have maximised conflict deliberately.
Click to expand...

To be honest there were only two who caused conflict, the old bloke and horrible scouse woman.
I would think out of 12 people that would be normal.
 
jaybee said:
I'd be interested to hear how the jury was selected. Ideally, it would have been like in real life, but I expect channel 4 may have had way more than 12 people to select from who were legible, and they went with a selection which would have maximised conflict deliberately.
Click to expand...

I think someone else pointed out, that people who were introverted and more conscienous would less likely to agree to be on reality TV.

Additionally, people who do want to be on reality TV maybe like to be controversial to make a name for themselves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom