|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jun 23, 2014 10:25:49 GMT
Well, I can tell you that a 4-day trial for sexual assault and us deliberating for such a long time in a small jury room (= prison cell) is seriously NOT FUN. Skive? I'd rather go to work, thank you very much. That is seriously unpleasant for you Martin ... Good luck with it all. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 23, 2014 22:34:52 GMT
I was on a selection panel for a 5-6 day trial today. The charge took some reading as it was 15 counts of sexual assault, indecent assault and rape, all dating back to 1971-73. Can you imagine being a witness to events 43 years ago?
I wrote a note to the judge asking to be excused as I cannot miss Monday at work and was allowed to step down. I am frankly relieved as that could have been even more stressful than last week's trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 23, 2014 22:38:04 GMT
Gosh, that would have been a rough one to have been on.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 24, 2014 3:39:53 GMT
Glad you managed to miss that one sounds really heavy
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242 
|
Post by Marco on Jun 24, 2014 6:31:56 GMT
Life could be worse, and it's a duty I'm looking forward to gaining some more insight into. So now that you've 'sucked it', as it were, have you liked what you've seen?  Marco. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jun 24, 2014 9:17:32 GMT
I was on a selection panel for a 5-6 day trial today. The charge took some reading as it was 15 counts of sexual assault, indecent assault and rape, all dating back to 1971-73. Can you imagine being a witness to events 43 years ago? I wrote a note to the judge asking to be excused as I cannot miss Monday at work and was allowed to step down. I am frankly relieved as that could have been even more stressful than last week's trial. I know this goes on but I do not want to be anywhere near it. I even avoid programmes on TV that are too violent. Incidentally a reason I didn't like Game of Thrones. My heart goes out to the people that sit on juries for things like this, let alone victims - or any wrongfully accused |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 24, 2014 9:44:35 GMT
Life could be worse, and it's a duty I'm looking forward to gaining some more insight into. So now that you've 'sucked it', as it were, have you liked what you've seen? No, not at all. I know there have to be laws and there has to be due process and there have to be juries. I've done my service and I can say that it was interesting to see first hand but the trial and deliberations were unpleasant, due to the nature of the case. There is a very strong sense of having the defendant's future in your hands, although we had no compunction in finding this person guilty. Nevertheless, I would not like to ever find myself in the dock, as the view from there would be (metaphorically) very different indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 24, 2014 16:36:29 GMT
No, not at all. I know there have to be laws and there has to be due process *and there have to be juries* Whilst I agree with the first two statements, the last I feel has had it's day. Juries are no longer an effective method of ensuring justice is carried out fairly or evenhandedly. You would be shocked at the burden of proof required these days by the CPS before they actually take an offender to trial. If they are not confident of a guilty verdict the case is either discontinued, or bargained down to a lesser plea and the victim is often the last person considered. Even when you get an offender in front of a jury, they still often walk, as the '12 good and true' find themselves in moral conflict and its easier to believe a lie from the witness box and vote for not guilty, than it is to live with the possible guilt of convicting an innocent person. So it is easier to go down the path of hiding behind the burden of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt. A good defence barrister can generate such a smoke screen, that crucial evidence gets discounted. Its a money making industry for a lot of people, who could care less whether justice is done. Trials these days are often lengthy and complex and beyond the mental capacity of many jurors, so again, its easier to vote for a NG verdict. And as most people and you have alluded too Martin, its an onerous task - it needs reform as too many guilty offenders go free these days, which actually suits the legal system as convicting them is too much of a financial burden. All in my humble and cynical opinion of course . . . |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 24, 2014 16:48:16 GMT
It could be the area, Tim, but I found almost all of the jurors I mingled with at Winchester good and decent people. We all felt the pressure, but we very much considered the impact of releasing this scrote into the public to find another victim. If I compare what I saw in the last two weeks with the procedure we've all seen on TV in South Africa with Oscar Pistorius, where there is only a judge, then I vote to keep our system.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jun 24, 2014 17:21:35 GMT
If the CPS go for watertight how come that awful Rebekah Brooks got off ?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 24, 2014 17:59:08 GMT
Mmm, hmm, yet her lover, with whom she shared everything, was convicted?
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jun 24, 2014 20:30:17 GMT
Quite and she looks like she eats babies for breakfast and bites the heads of whippets for party tricks
|
|
Barry
Rank: Trio
Posts: 195
|
Post by Barry on Jun 24, 2014 21:07:15 GMT
It could be the area, Tim, but I found almost all of the jurors I mingled with at Winchester good and decent people. We all felt the pressure, but we very much considered the impact of releasing this scrote into the public to find another victim. If I compare what I saw in the last two weeks with the procedure we've all seen on TV in South Africa with Oscar Pistorius, where there is only a judge, then I vote to keep our system. Agreed, I did jury service over thirty yers ago, and was impressed by the fact that my fellow jurors did take their responsibilities seriously. I thought that most would want to come to a quick, ill-considered, verdict so they could be out quickly and have time to nip down to Waitrose or to pick up the kids from school. But no, the evidence was fully discussed and, eventually, a unanimous decision reached. I'm a great believer of trial by one's peers: "12 true and trusted men". The thought of trial by a meritocratic 'oligararchy' fills me with horror. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 25, 2014 7:38:14 GMT
If the CPS go for watertight how come that awful Rebekah Brooks got off ? I was referring more to volume crime cases as opposed to cases which are highly emotive and attract both public and media interest, but this illustrates perfectly its shortcomings. What the general public will not be aware of are the amount of cases that fail to reach trial due to cost, deemed not to be in the public interest or a lack of confidence in the jury system to convict. Martin has also highlighted the other major flaw, which is geographical. I would be reasonably confident that a Winchester Court jury would hopefully reach the correct verdict, but can that be said for all the Crown Court circuits of the UK? Would an offender facing trial in say Bournemouth for the same case, tried by the same barristers and before the same Judge stand a better chance of acquittal based on the jury from that area, as opposed to a Dorchester Crown Court jury? . . . justice should not be a post code lottery. Additionally jurors are now frequently held in contempt for either failing to take the trial seriously, listening to iPods under long hair or a veil, or worse still tweeting during a trial! The number of cases that collapse due to the jury system is extremely costly on the public purse and needs reform. I do agree a single Judge is not a good system, as that is open to corruption or personal bias, many judges also lack experience in certain complex areas such as fraud and e-crime, as do the jurors, again this cannot be a just method. Sorry gents, but its a flawed system - still one of the best in the world, but its in need of reform as the law and the society we live in has changed. I don't have all the answers, but it should be reviewed as its no longer fit for purpose IMO. Anyway, probably a subject to sit alongside politics or religion and more suited to discussion over a beer, rather than an internet forum |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 25, 2014 7:45:52 GMT
I'd agree with you Tim. My experience as a juror led me to utterly lose faith in the system. God forbid it, but should I ever find myself in the dock, I wouldn't want to think that my future was in the hands of the sort of idiots that I was sat around the table with in that jury room.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jun 25, 2014 9:02:05 GMT
Sounds like life and the curate's egg, good in parts.
It can be difficult to remain unaffected by the negative around us and sink into the mental mire
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 25, 2014 15:19:01 GMT
 If you had doubts before, here you go . . . how many millions did that take to get this to trial, they might be in the clear if they don't have the stomach for a retrial, which would cost a bucket load more. I rest my case m'lord - tis a flawed and outdated system, the jury trial has had its day, especially for cases like this. Wasn't Charlie the one captured on CCTV hiding evidence before a police raid? |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 25, 2014 16:14:07 GMT
What would be your replacement system, Tim?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 25, 2014 20:55:55 GMT
Agreed, I did jury service over thirty years ago. I think you might be surprised at the way its gone Barry in the last 30 years. What would be your replacement system, Tim? Well that's a tough one Martin and I don't profess to have the perfect solution, it would need a proper judicial review by people with more grey matter than me. However, I have thought for sometime now a panel of three Judges would be more appropriate, one of whom would need a level of knowledge and experience of the case materiel being tried. The economics would need to be properly assessed against the number of failed trials, retrials etc and I would imagine more cases would actually get to court with a system like this, so the conviction rate could conceivably rise which would cause a further problem - where would you put the offenders? We have one of the lowest number of beds available in prisons per head of population - total capacity is only around 88,000. Compare that to the States with over 1.5 million inmates and you can see the imbalance. Anyhoots, maybe it will change maybe it won't - but I'll leave you with this thought. Imagine you are a victim and your offender has a string of previous convictions and knows the system well. If they do know it, they will also know all the angles, one of which will be to say nothing and plead not guilty. There are a whole raft of measures in place to protect their legal and human rights (don't get me started on that), more so than the victim, not least the fact his previous convictions under most circumstances cannot be mentioned during the trial. How would you feel if the CPS dropped the case as without an admission its always a risk going to trial with a jury, as they really are unreliable - or imagine if they bargain the charges down to a lesser offence to secure a guilty plea. He/she then goes to court gets virtually bugger all sentence and walks out with a big smirk on their face and you know they are probably going to go straight out and do the exact same thing again . . justice? Enough of that now and time for some John Grant - I'm glad you do it though Martin, it gives you quite an insight into what actually goes on  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 25, 2014 21:16:05 GMT
It certainly did, Tim. I'm going to run some of the classes at school, tell the girls about my experiences as they know very little of the judicial system. It's the least I can do.
|
|
