The validity of Juries in Trials

[Manthor]

In the middle of my forensic psychology class now and we are discussing the assessment of psychosis and insanity in criminals. I was just wondering what the opinion was of people on the presence of juries at trial.

In Singapore the jury system was abolished early in the 1960s/1970s as it was felt that laypeople were not capable of understanding the relevance of the arguments presented by the prosecution and defence at a trial and it does bear some relevance. As a result the judge is the ultimate arbiter,deciding both innocence/guilt and the sentence according to the parameters of the law.

Do laypeople when called to a court of law have the capacity to understand the arguments and evidence presented by both sides,in order to determine guilt? Is the jury system that relies on laypeople a valid instrument of the courts or does it undermine justice and the determination of guilt?

[Alyrium Denryle]

In the middle of my forensic psychology class now and we are discussing the assessment of psychosis and insanity in criminals. I was just wondering what the opinion was of people on the presence of juries at trial.

In Singapore the jury system was abolished early in the 1960s/1970s as it was felt that laypeople were not capable of understanding the relevance of the arguments presented by the prosecution and defence at a trial and it does bear some relevance. As a result the judge is the ultimate arbiter,deciding both innocence/guilt and the sentence according to the parameters of the law.

Do laypeople when called to a court of law have the capacity to understand the arguments and evidence presented by both sides,in order to determine guilt? Is the jury system that relies on laypeople a valid instrument of the courts or does it undermine justice and the determination of guilt?

It undermines justice. We have had an instance on this very board were an individual was convicted by a jury of Murder with no evidence other than the fact that his family is hungarian and he jerks off at night. This was in Australia. Lay juries do not know the value of different types of evidence (such as the fact that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form), and will accept as evidence of guilt character assassination performed by the prosecution.

Now, you still have to solve one problem. You do want someone deciding your guilt or innocence who is A) Independent of the state and B) Not elected. Many American judges are elected.

[Manthor]

Ok but why would an elected judge undermine justice?I can understand that in the American system they have the lobbies that represent political agenda's, such as the corporate lobbies and the country-aligned lobby,given how Singapore and Taiwan have their own modest groups lobbying for influence in Washington DC. In Singapore the judiciary is unfortunately aligned closely with the state,therefor resulting in members of the opposition being highly vulnerable to lawsuits.

But otherwise wouldn't an elected judge be drawn from a nominally 'neutral' individuals with a background in the law?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok but why would an elected judge undermine justice?I can understand that in the American system they have the lobbies that represent political agenda's, such as the corporate lobbies and the country-aligned lobby,given how Singapore and Taiwan have their own modest groups lobbying for influence in Washington DC. In Singapore the judiciary is unfortunately aligned closely with the state,therefor resulting in members of the opposition being highly vulnerable to lawsuits.

But otherwise wouldn't an elected judge be drawn from a nominally 'neutral' individuals with a background in the law?

No. Americans have this macho obsession with being "Tough on Crime". As a result, around election years, you can bet that a lot of innocent people would be found guilty because of the Judge's desire to keep his job.

[PainRack]

One should note that the two reasons given to eliminate juries in Singapore was to obtain convictions for communists, in which the juries of their peers would refuse to convict otherwise and the cultural considerations with regards to capital punishment.

[Kanastrous]

Having sat on a couple of juries I'm pretty sure I would prefer to appear before a judge, myself. Most of the people with whom I was empaneled couldn't have found their own asses with both hands, and an ass detector.

[Temujin]

Having sat on a couple of juries I'm pretty sure I would prefer to appear before a judge, myself. Most of the people with whom I was empaneled couldn't have found their own asses with both hands, and an ass detector.

That's why I prefer having professional juries, something Mike argued for quite a few times on the board. You get the benefits of a jury trial without all the stupidity of your so-called peers in a strictly citizen jury.

[Kanastrous]

The most distressing thing was a fellow juror keeping us in the f'ing room for an extra day because she couldn't get it through her solid-bone skull that we were there to return a decision based upon our instructions and the law, not to award the plaintiff $$$ because we felt bad for her...

...I don't know. It's kind of a tossup; I almost want to say if you're guilty go for a jury because they may be fool enough to let you off, if you're innocent go with the judge. Screw it, it *is* a tossup.

[CaptJodan]

I was told in my Cognitive Psych undergrad class that if I ever wanted to get out of being selected for a jury, try and mention that I was or had studied cognitive psychology. Lawyers want dumb people, and an educated person that can look past the theatrics that a lawyer will try to use to sway a verdict isn't going to work as easily as someone who is highly educated and capable of making good decisions.

True to form, when I had to go in to jury duty, I used this, and I was not picked.

That this happens really frightens the hell out of me.

[Thanas]

I was told in my Cognitive Psych undergrad class that if I ever wanted to get out of being selected for a jury, try and mention that I was or had studied cognitive psychology. Lawyers want dumb people, and an educated person that can look past the theatrics that a lawyer will try to use to sway a verdict isn't going to work as easily as someone who is highly educated and capable of making good decisions.

Correction: The lawyers who have a losing case want a dumb jury because then they can try to appeal to emotion instead of facts.

That said, I also know of some very successful lawyers who hate the whole process. For example, one of those, a highly competent lawyer with several US Supreme court wins under his belt, one time just said: "Judge, if my colleague here has no objections, I'll take the first twelve people who walk through the door".

[Kanastrous]

Weirdly enough on a medical-malpractice suit, both attorneys wanted me empaneled despite my admitting to having been raised by physicians, having interned in bio-medical research and having been on the receiving end of badly-practiced medicine (with permanent consequences) myself.

Seemed odd that at least one of them wouldn't have objected.

[Thanas]

It realy depends on the case and the lawyer in question.

[Kanastrous]

After the conclusion of the trial both attorneys buttonholed us outside the courtroom to ask us where they had argued effectively, or ineffectively, and why. I hadn't realized that lawyers did that, but of course it makes sense.

[Steve]

It seems to me to be an issue of abusing the voir dire process. It's not that citizen juries will always have idiots, it's that the lawyers are permitted to exclude intelligent or educated people, or even people with experience in the issue at hand, without having to provide justification, arguably because the process was conceived before lawyers got the bright idea of intentionally monkeying with juries to get one that fits their wishes.

I'd say look at voir dire reform and do trial runs of "professional juries" before making a permanent decision to kill trial-by-jury. Having it where the judge decides who sits and who doesn't, for instance, instead of having to dismiss jurors fingered out by the defense or prosecution.

[Cecelia5578]

I was always under the impression that the saying among lawyers is "if you know you are innocent you want a judge; otherwise you want a jury trial."

[ShadowDragon8685]

It seems to me to be an issue of abusing the voir dire process. It's not that citizen juries will always have idiots, it's that the lawyers are permitted to exclude intelligent or educated people, or even people with experience in the issue at hand, without having to provide justification, arguably because the process was conceived before lawyers got the bright idea of intentionally monkeying with juries to get one that fits their wishes.

I'd say look at voir dire reform and do trial runs of "professional juries" before making a permanent decision to kill trial-by-jury. Having it where the judge decides who sits and who doesn't, for instance, instead of having to dismiss jurors fingered out by the defense or prosecution.

The downside to a professional jury is that, well... You'd need to employ a hell of a lot of well-educated people to do nothing but be a jury. Since it's unlikely a jury would be allowed to watch more than one case at a time...

The upshot is that a professional jury should, hopefully, be able to find their ass on kinesthetic sense alone, needing neither hands nor ass detector. It's simply not a practical solution, however.

A more workable solution might be to employ professionals - possibly though preferably not the judge - to weed the juries. There are good reasons you might want to exclude someone from a jury - you don't want a homophobe on a jury in a trial where someone's sexuality will be coming up, you don't want a racist on a jury presiding over someone of another race, especially if the charge in question involves them supposedly wronging (or being wronged) by someone of the racist's race.

[Jalinth]

I was always under the impression that the saying among lawyers is "if you know you are innocent you want a judge; otherwise you want a jury trial."

But a number of the convicted innocent cases in the states can be blamed more on the judge than on the jury. Admitting bad evidence, obviously biased forensic work, etc... See Steven Hayne - the former Mississippi corner who wasn't certified by any board and came out with truly bizarre theories that helped convict a number of people. So all moving to a judge in that situation is going from a 1% chance of justice to 0% of justice. Also, juries can go "rogue" sometimes which is helpful when the law is an ass. So a bad judge is worse than a bad jury.

[Temujin]

Here's some of the notable threads where Professional Juries were discussed. Was gonna post these earlier but the search function kept crapping out.

Why is trial by jury a good thing?

More Important: Jury Duty or Voting?

Jury Duty Sucks Ass

The Logic and Morality of Trials by Jury

[Eddie Van Helsing]

In the United States, jury nullification is one of the reasons the US Constitution guarantees to the accused the right to a trial by jury, as a jury refusing to convict is often a last-ditch defense against abuse of power on the part of the government. I myself have served on a few juries in Connecticut, and have attempted to persuade the rest of the jury to nullify in order to protest drug prohibition.

[Kanastrous]

I guess your use of the word attempted means that it didn't work out too well.

[Eddie Van Helsing]

I guess your use of the word attempted means that it didn't work out too well.

One trial ended in an acquittal on all charges. Another ended with the defendant only being found guilty of one count of simple possession of paraphrenalia. I hung the jury on the last trial. I couldn't persuade anybody else to acquit, and they couldn't persuade me to convict.

[Stofsk]

Give me a judge any day. No juries, not even professional ones. Don't ever trust any system where the decision making process takes place behind closed doors and have a 'yes/no' result without informing you why it's yes or no, and is done purely out of centuries old tradition that refuses to change. At least a judge has to say why he is doing what he's doing.

[Eddie Van Helsing]

Give me a judge any day. No juries, not even professional ones. Don't ever trust any system where the decision making process takes place behind closed doors and have a 'yes/no' result without informing you why it's yes or no, and is done purely out of centuries old tradition that refuses to change. At least a judge has to say why he is doing what he's doing.

Personally, I don't trust government-run courts whether the verdict comes from a judge or a jury, but I tend to be very cynical about authority figures.

[Temujin]

Give me a judge any day. No juries, not even professional ones. Don't ever trust any system where the decision making process takes place behind closed doors and have a 'yes/no' result without informing you why it's yes or no, and is done purely out of centuries old tradition that refuses to change. At least a judge has to say why he is doing what he's doing.

Even with a professional jury, I think the defendant should have the right to know that.

If people are going to pass judgment, regardless of the outcome, they should have to explain how and why they came to that decision.

[Stofsk]

The whole jury selection process in America is bizarre. Apparently lawyers can ask questions of the jury to find out what their level of education is, what their understanding is of what is required of them, whether they have any prejudices or preconceived notions etc. Here, you might get a job description if you're lucky, but you can't actually question them. It makes the challenge system here a goddamn joke.

EDIT: Yeah Temujin, I know. It's just that juries are an institution that have existed for centuries, they're not going to change them. That might actually imply the system doesn't work! Can't have that.