Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Increase in hung juries in ACT

By bundah 28 October 2012 54

There has been a spate of hung juries in recent ACT Supreme Court trials. Since September 18 four out of five trials have been deadlocked which has led to frustration for those charged given it will mean additional court costs and playing the waiting game should the DPP mount a retrial.

For the details here is the link [Canberra Times].

To possibly avoid this scenario becoming an ongoing problem in homicides or sexual assault offences where judge only trials are no longer an option i would suggest that we need to adopt a policy of majority verdicts.Perhaps something along the lines whereby there is a majority of 10 of the 12 jurors in agreeance then that would be a sufficient majority for an outcome in the trial.

Any thoughts?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
54 Responses to
Increase in hung juries in ACT
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
FD10 7:19 pm 30 Oct 12

astrojax said :

actually, it isn’t at all ‘obvious’ that half of the population would have an iq below the median – it could be the case, theoretically, that a very large percentage of the population fall precisely on that meridian with only a few here or there either side. equally, a majority could sit at or above the meridian and the population below are so far below as to outweigh, as it were, the few well above, bringing the ‘average’ down to slightly below where the majority of individuals sit… i’m guessing there are statisticians among the hivemind with more on this.

I’m no statistician, but I feel compelled to correct you. The ‘median’ is defined as being the middle score, so in fact the median would have exactly 50% of people scoring above it, and 50% of people scoring below it. You are thinking of the ‘mean’ score, or what is commonly referred to as the ‘average’, which can indeed by influenced by extreme scores (which have no significant effect upon the median). So let’s say your dataset consisted of 3 numbers: 1, 2, 4. The median would be 2, because it is the middle score. The mean would be (1+2+4)/3 = 2.33, which is the average score.

That’s why house prices are often quoted as a ‘median house price’, because house prices tend to be skewed as there are more higher priced houses than lower ones. For example, if you had an area with a $500,000 average price you’d have a lot more houses above $900,000 than you would under $100,000, so this mean price would be higher than the median, which many see as a more unbiased middle-point of house pricing.

Sorry for the off topic stats lesson, but now you know the difference between the median and the mean, and why it is “obvious that half of the population would have an iq below the median” 🙂

Pork Hunt 5:52 pm 30 Oct 12

bundah said :

All this IQ talk is somewhat amusing but entirely predictable. IQ scores are standardised so that they will have a mean of 100 with 68% of scores falling between 85 and 115,so it’s pretty much a bell curve.

What’s even more amusing is the Binet Scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelligence_Scales#Scale

I see that moron is considered to fall between 50-69 which is superior to imbecile and idiot,so as for where certain members of RA fall is anyone’s guess,but one has to wonder.

Bring back the user ranks along those lines. I bags being a retard…

Whatever did happen to the ranks JB? They just disappeared without explanation.

bundah 5:33 pm 30 Oct 12

All this IQ talk is somewhat amusing but entirely predictable. IQ scores are standardised so that they will have a mean of 100 with 68% of scores falling between 85 and 115,so it’s pretty much a bell curve.

What’s even more amusing is the Binet Scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelligence_Scales#Scale

I see that moron is considered to fall between 50-69 which is superior to imbecile and idiot,so as for where certain members of RA fall is anyone’s guess,but one has to wonder.

Pork Hunt 4:13 pm 30 Oct 12

milkman said :

Pork Hunt said :

Thus far in this debate, the following RiotActors have stated (more or less) that everybody else in the world is a moron: milkman, HenryBG, bigfeeet and neandethalsis.
In their minds nobody else can be trusted to carry out jury duty “properly”.
Does such a belief constitute some form of mental illness and if so, can one of the other learned members give the disease a name?

On a lighter note, everytime I see the user name “neanderthalsis”, I picture a large and less than glamorous lesbian or “sis” as in sister. I trust that this may not be the case though… 🙂

Are you suggesting that most people aren’t stupid?

I sometimes joke that 50% of ones friends are below average, perhaps yours really are…

bundah 3:39 pm 30 Oct 12

Jethro said :

Grrrr said :

milkman said :

Are you suggesting that most people aren’t stupid?

Did you know that 50% of the population have an IQ of less than 100? Shocking but true…

Indeed…. 50% of the population is below median intelligence (obviously)… but median intelligence ‘aint all that high to begin with. The average person generally has fairly low comprehension skills and is likely to be swayed by rhetoric and emotion as much as evidence.

Once you consider this, combined with basic psychology that shows how people will react in pressure situations by deferring to authority or personality, as well as how people will change their opinions in group situations, it is very clear that the current jury system is a terrible idea.

If we must persist with juries, I suggest separating the 12 jurors into 3 groups of 4 that don’t mix with each other. If each group can come to the same conclusion, it would be a much more reliable finding than a group of 12 reaching a verdict. Or we could have professional juries of trained and qualified people. Either situation would be preferable to the current way of doing things.

I do lke the idea of professional juries and i believe serious consideration ought to be given to facilitating such a process.However we still then have the other problem of entrenched,manifestly inadequate sentencing to resolve.

astrojax 12:52 pm 30 Oct 12

Jethro said :

Grrrr said :

milkman said :

Are you suggesting that most people aren’t stupid?

Did you know that 50% of the population have an IQ of less than 100? Shocking but true…

Indeed…. 50% of the population is below median intelligence (obviously)… but median intelligence ‘aint all that high to begin with. The average person generally has fairly low comprehension skills and is likely to be swayed by rhetoric and emotion as much as evidence.

Once you consider this, combined with basic psychology that shows how people will react in pressure situations by deferring to authority or personality, as well as how people will change their opinions in group situations, it is very clear that the current jury system is a terrible idea.

If we must persist with juries, I suggest separating the 12 jurors into 3 groups of 4 that don’t mix with each other. If each group can come to the same conclusion, it would be a much more reliable finding than a group of 12 reaching a verdict. Or we could have professional juries of trained and qualified people. Either situation would be preferable to the current way of doing things.

actually, it isn’t at all ‘obvious’ that half of the population would have an iq below the median – it could be the case, theoretically, that a very large percentage of the population fall precisely on that meridian with only a few here or there either side. equally, a majority could sit at or above the meridian and the population below are so far below as to outweigh, as it were, the few well above, bringing the ‘average’ down to slightly below where the majority of individuals sit… i’m guessing there are statisticians among the hivemind with more on this.

poetix said :

LSWCHP said :

FioBla said :

We should strip these hung juries.

Erection now.

Oh Thank God Thank God, I thought I was the only one, and I had actually come to this thread to admit my sins.

Every time I’ve visited RA in the last few days I’ve seen the “Increase in Hung Juries” subject in the Recent Comments sidebar, and it’s just made me want to come here to write a long rant about the miscarriages of justice that must be inevitably occurring as a result of having juries consisting only of well endowed males, or something along those lines. But no longer! That monkey is now off my back. Thank you FB.

I can’t believe how some people derail serious discussions on this site with their silly jokes and childish innuendos! Thank God some of us are quite rigidly serious.

now i need a stiff drink – not the concrete kind. thrust that innuendo back whence it came, i say…

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 12:41 pm 30 Oct 12

Jethro said :

Grrrr said :

milkman said :

Are you suggesting that most people aren’t stupid?

Did you know that 50% of the population have an IQ of less than 100? Shocking but true…

Indeed…. 50% of the population is below median intelligence (obviously)… but median intelligence ‘aint all that high to begin with. The average person generally has fairly low comprehension skills and is likely to be swayed by rhetoric and emotion as much as evidence.

Once you consider this, combined with basic psychology that shows how people will react in pressure situations by deferring to authority or personality, as well as how people will change their opinions in group situations, it is very clear that the current jury system is a terrible idea.

If we must persist with juries, I suggest separating the 12 jurors into 3 groups of 4 that don’t mix with each other. If each group can come to the same conclusion, it would be a much more reliable finding than a group of 12 reaching a verdict. Or we could have professional juries of trained and qualified people. Either situation would be preferable to the current way of doing things.

I do like your first idea but the second one is a bit worrying and I imagine it could easily end up with groups of people with the same type of thinking as the current magistrates and there would never be a guilty verdict ever again.

Jethro 11:49 am 30 Oct 12

Grrrr said :

milkman said :

Are you suggesting that most people aren’t stupid?

Did you know that 50% of the population have an IQ of less than 100? Shocking but true…

Indeed…. 50% of the population is below median intelligence (obviously)… but median intelligence ‘aint all that high to begin with. The average person generally has fairly low comprehension skills and is likely to be swayed by rhetoric and emotion as much as evidence.

Once you consider this, combined with basic psychology that shows how people will react in pressure situations by deferring to authority or personality, as well as how people will change their opinions in group situations, it is very clear that the current jury system is a terrible idea.

If we must persist with juries, I suggest separating the 12 jurors into 3 groups of 4 that don’t mix with each other. If each group can come to the same conclusion, it would be a much more reliable finding than a group of 12 reaching a verdict. Or we could have professional juries of trained and qualified people. Either situation would be preferable to the current way of doing things.

ezy10z 11:02 am 30 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

milkman said :

The problem is that too many jurors are morons.

Have you any idea where jurors come from? I have news for you and it’s not from some moron factory.
They are your peers, neighbours and workmates or relatives.

Rubbish.

Juries are solely composed of people whose knowledge,skills, and intelligence are so undeveloped their time can be valued at $96.70 per day sitting on a jury.

100% spot on!

Grrrr 10:58 am 30 Oct 12

milkman said :

Are you suggesting that most people aren’t stupid?

Did you know that 50% of the population have an IQ of less than 100? Shocking but true…

NoImRight 10:44 am 30 Oct 12

bundah said :

To get serious for a moment it has been claimed that in some cases the reason for a hung jury are eccentric individuals and their inability to comprehend the evidence and the law(hence morons) or their refusal to reach a verdict.

Studies have shown that in 64% of cases in hung juries the majority voted for conviction and 30% for acquittal,the remainder evenly split.The other interesting statistic is that the proportion of juries that hung with one or two holdout jurors constituted 40% of all hung juries.

So one wonders if there will ever be solutions to this recent occurrence particularly if the evidence is marginal or unconvincing.Yep,if only lie detection methods were more advanced and accurate(if that’s even possible) then frustrating trials and hung juries would be a non issue.

Sounds like a script for a good movie. Maybe call it Minority Report? No on second thoughts that would make an awful movie. Forget it.

Stevian 10:42 am 30 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

Thus far in this debate, the following RiotActors have stated (more or less) that everybody else in the world is a moron: milkman, HenryBG, bigfeeet and neandethalsis.
In their minds nobody else can be trusted to carry out jury duty “properly”.
Does such a belief constitute some form of mental illness and if so, can one of the other learned members give the disease a name?

I don’t know why you put me in that list, but in any case, if the world isn’t jam-packed full of morons, then how come Karl Sandilands and Alan Jones are the most popular radio DJs in the country?

Because the world is full of people like you

bundah 9:21 am 30 Oct 12

To get serious for a moment it has been claimed that in some cases the reason for a hung jury are eccentric individuals and their inability to comprehend the evidence and the law(hence morons) or their refusal to reach a verdict.

Studies have shown that in 64% of cases in hung juries the majority voted for conviction and 30% for acquittal,the remainder evenly split.The other interesting statistic is that the proportion of juries that hung with one or two holdout jurors constituted 40% of all hung juries.

So one wonders if there will ever be solutions to this recent occurrence particularly if the evidence is marginal or unconvincing.Yep,if only lie detection methods were more advanced and accurate(if that’s even possible) then frustrating trials and hung juries would be a non issue.

bundah 11:39 pm 29 Oct 12

poetix said :

LSWCHP said :

FioBla said :

We should strip these hung juries.

Erection now.

Oh Thank God Thank God, I thought I was the only one, and I had actually come to this thread to admit my sins.

Every time I’ve visited RA in the last few days I’ve seen the “Increase in Hung Juries” subject in the Recent Comments sidebar, and it’s just made me want to come here to write a long rant about the miscarriages of justice that must be inevitably occurring as a result of having juries consisting only of well endowed males, or something along those lines. But no longer! That monkey is now off my back. Thank you FB.

I can’t believe how some people derail serious discussions on this site with their silly jokes and childish innuendos! Thank God some of us are quite rigidly serious.

Ah i see that you have raised the bar given innuendos can be quite painful especially when members of hung juries are keen to ram their point home!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site