28 October 2012

Increase in hung juries in ACT

| bundah
Join the conversation
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?

Join the conversation

54
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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” 🙂

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.

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.

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…

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.

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_Nerd12:41 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.

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.

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!

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…

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.

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

Now, back to flogging Anu Singh, the smokers at Canberra Hospital and taser-wielding rozzers…

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?

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… 🙂

neanderthalsis 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.

Most of my peers, relatives, neighbours and workmates are morons. What hope is there for the judicial system?

and they vote, too – see?

neanderthalsis1:53 pm 29 Oct 12

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.

Most of my peers, relatives, neighbours and workmates are morons. What hope is there for the judicial system?

steele_blade1:24 pm 29 Oct 12

bundah said :

steele_blade said :

I was on a jury many moons ago and we had 2 hold-outs. Eventually the 2 said “you all seem reasonable and sensible, we’ll agree with you, not guilty on the rape, guilty of minor theft.” Because of the guilty verdict we heard this guy’s priors read in court before sentencing. He had committed the offence before, with a very particular twist to the way he raped his victim. And we all knew then that he was guilty of this rape too and we had let him off. Had the 2 jurors stuck to their guns, there would have been a re-trial. Maybe the next jury wouldn’t have got it so badly wrong. From that experience, I support judge only trials. But if you have a jury, then it’s 12 out of 12 for me.

Out of curiosity why didn’t you feel he was guilty of rape as well as robbery? Was the victim unconvincing or the prosecution case inadequate or?

The most important lesson I learned is that there are two sides to every case, but only two sides. Either the defence is 100% truthful or the prosecution is. We thought some of the victim’s statements didn’t sound right, but also some of the defendant’s statements sounded strange. So during deliberations we said “what if this, what if that. What if this bit is true but not this strange sounding bit.” Because no one had experience on a jury, how were we to know better? Juries should be told to not make up their own scenarios but to stick to unequivocally believing one side or the other.

One thing that fooled us was the unchallenged statement from the dock by the accused. Fortunately these statements have now been eliminated in changes as to how trials are conducted. The accused told us he was in hospital for an illness and checked himself out before the police arrived to arrest him. We found out that “hospital” was actually a drug rehab. clinic, and that “checking out” meant that he jumped out the window when he saw the police pull up. Everyone in the court knew it was a lie except the jury. But he couldn’t be cross-examined. Thankfully that doesn’t happen now.

A loty of large employers continue to pay you during jury duty. You then just give them what you are paid.

Interesting that some who like to complain about “the system” feel no need to actually contribute to it themselves.

HenryBG said :

p1 said :

HenryBG said :

In other words, juries are *not* composed of our “peers”. They are formed from a very select and unrepresentative segment of the community: those whose time has very little value. Mainly the unemployed.

Don’t forget people for whom civic duty and justice for their fellow citizens is more important than monetary compensation?

Yes, let’s make a list of all those Australians since Federation who have agreed to default on their mortgage in order to sit on a jury for $96.70/day:

– ?
– ?

Well, yes it is true that financial pressures would cause some people to be compelled to refuse.

People that earn lots of money though would be less likely to need this excuse though – and since there is a correlation between education/intelligence and income – that would tend bring up the average yes?

p1 said :

HenryBG said :

In other words, juries are *not* composed of our “peers”. They are formed from a very select and unrepresentative segment of the community: those whose time has very little value. Mainly the unemployed.

Don’t forget people for whom civic duty and justice for their fellow citizens is more important than monetary compensation?

Yes, let’s make a list of all those Australians since Federation who have agreed to default on their mortgage in order to sit on a jury for $96.70/day:

– ?
– ?

Why don’t they just hold a secret ballet? If its 6/6 the judge gets the casting vote.

How very politician to have a thought process that says ‘we don’t like the results we’re getting in court, let’s make it easier to convict. It’ll end up costing us less and it’s only people’s liberty we’re talking about.

Anyone seen 12 Angry Men? (I haven’t seen the remake). There was only 1 hold-out there, but reason prevailed and with reasoned argument brought the other 11 around. And yes, I know it was only a movie.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

HenryBG said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

A light chuckle before he signs off and sleeps on his piles of cash, dreaming of his contempt for the minimum wage earners.

In other words, juries are *not* composed of our “peers”. They are formed from a very select and unrepresentative segment of the community: those whose time has very little value. Mainly the unemployed.

Could this be becuase peeps like your self dont do it?

Coppers don’t do it. Nor do lawyers. Nor do doctors, nurses or schoolteachers.

The pool from which jurors are drawn is a very restricted one.

We should strip these hung juries.

Erection now.

This is a bit of a radical idea, but could alternate jurors work in this situation? If a jury can’t reach a decision, then some jurors are randomly sent home and replaced with the alternate jurors. The jury would then need to start deliberations again, but it could avoid a retrial. I know that’s not how the alternate juror system usually works though…

HenryBG said :

In other words, juries are *not* composed of our “peers”. They are formed from a very select and unrepresentative segment of the community: those whose time has very little value. Mainly the unemployed.

Don’t forget people for whom civic duty and justice for their fellow citizens is more important than monetary compensation?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:41 am 29 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

A light chuckle before he signs off and sleeps on his piles of cash, dreaming of his contempt for the minimum wage earners.

In other words, juries are *not* composed of our “peers”. They are formed from a very select and unrepresentative segment of the community: those whose time has very little value. Mainly the unemployed.

Could this be becuase peeps like your self dont do it?

steele_blade said :

I was on a jury many moons ago and we had 2 hold-outs. Eventually the 2 said “you all seem reasonable and sensible, we’ll agree with you, not guilty on the rape, guilty of minor theft.” Because of the guilty verdict we heard this guy’s priors read in court before sentencing. He had committed the offence before, with a very particular twist to the way he raped his victim. And we all knew then that he was guilty of this rape too and we had let him off. Had the 2 jurors stuck to their guns, there would have been a re-trial. Maybe the next jury wouldn’t have got it so badly wrong. From that experience, I support judge only trials. But if you have a jury, then it’s 12 out of 12 for me.

Out of curiosity why didn’t you feel he was guilty of rape as well as robbery? Was the victim unconvincing or the prosecution case inadequate or?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

A light chuckle before he signs off and sleeps on his piles of cash, dreaming of his contempt for the minimum wage earners.

In other words, juries are *not* composed of our “peers”. They are formed from a very select and unrepresentative segment of the community: those whose time has very little value. Mainly the unemployed.

Lookout Smithers7:18 am 29 Oct 12

bundah said :

Much could be said about sentencing practices in the ACT however it deserves a post of its own and needs to be properly researched so that one can make informed judgements and express opinions which are accurate and measured.

Can’t say I would enjoy that kind of research for years on end. But there are always studies happening in the courts be it for trends or just stats. But the useful findings and information isn’t promoted deep into the community. They didn’t intend to replace the news with a study I guess but that is kind of what I think needs to happen almost exactly.

Much could be said about sentencing practices in the ACT however it deserves a post of its own and needs to be properly researched so that one can make informed judgements and express opinions which are accurate and measured.

steele_blade11:18 pm 28 Oct 12

I was on a jury many moons ago and we had 2 hold-outs. Eventually the 2 said “you all seem reasonable and sensible, we’ll agree with you, not guilty on the rape, guilty of minor theft.” Because of the guilty verdict we heard this guy’s priors read in court before sentencing. He had committed the offence before, with a very particular twist to the way he raped his victim. And we all knew then that he was guilty of this rape too and we had let him off. Had the 2 jurors stuck to their guns, there would have been a re-trial. Maybe the next jury wouldn’t have got it so badly wrong. From that experience, I support judge only trials. But if you have a jury, then it’s 12 out of 12 for me.

$96.70? Sounds like the Jurors are the victims of crime.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:05 pm 28 Oct 12

bundah said :

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.

If only we could afford you Henry!

Lol

Henrybg is just a average guy, he gets up in the morning, puts his pants on, dodges jury duty and then makes $5000 per day.
He smirks arrogantly as he reads the small folks responses to his superior posts.
A light chuckle before he signs off and sleeps on his piles of cash, dreaming of his contempt for the minimum wage earners.

Lookout Smithers9:35 pm 28 Oct 12

I think that this is still an issue that needs further discussion and more education about the process. I wrote it last year. Excuse the syntax and lazy structure. Actually no just read what the study found.

http://the-riotact.com/acurate-information-hooray-for-the-canberra-judiciary/43587

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.

If only we could afford you Henry!

milkman 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.

Exactly. Mostly morons.

The same could be said of some in the judiciary as well.

Pork Hunt said :

They are your peers, neighbours and workmates or relatives.

Yep. Morons.

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.

Exactly. Mostly morons.

In the last jury I was on we were kept an extra day due to the old-ish retired guy wanting something to do for the day and a free feed. Was a blatant decision but he kept fobbing off on a decision

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.

Deref said :

I’m becoming more convinced that we need to ditch our adversarial legal system for the inquisitorial system.

15th century Spanish style? Nobody would expect that…

I’m becoming more convinced that we need to ditch our adversarial legal system for the inquisitorial system.

pezza said :

If the prosecution did their job properly and established the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt for all of the jurors, they’d get their verdict.

I’m guessing your knowledge of the law is limited to snippets of Law & Order then.

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.

milkman said :

The problem is that too many jurors are morons.

I agree. The jury system should be scrapped. Richard Dawkins wrote a good essay arguing just that.

The problem is that too many jurors are morons.

pezza said :

I disagree. Having a jury verdict be unanimous is one of the most important principles of our legal system. If the prosecution did their job properly and established the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt for all of the jurors, they’d get their verdict.

Not everybody who fronts up in court is guilty.

I totally agree with your comment re the prosecution because there is no doubt that prosecutors have made a meal of any number of cases eg. in the high profile cases of Gordon Wood and Jeffrey Gilham(tortuous reading) where the police,csi’s and various prosecutors made numerous fundamental errors which resulted in both being acquitted on appeal.

Having said that apparently there have been cases where a sole juror disagreed with the other eleven,for reasons only known to them,which have resulted in hung juries hence my suggestion of a 10 out 12 majority.

I disagree. Having a jury verdict be unanimous is one of the most important principles of our legal system. If the prosecution did their job properly and established the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt for all of the jurors, they’d get their verdict.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.