Comments on: Crime too complex for trial by jury http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/crime-too-complex-for-trial-by-jury/ now with extra source Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:29:53 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Nick http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/crime-too-complex-for-trial-by-jury/#comment-3003 Nick Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-3003 Pat, jurors are chosen at random from a ballot box. About 40 people sit in the court room and 12 of their names are called at random by the associate taking names from the box.<br /><br />The complexity of trials is no reason to abolish the jury system. The intelligence and collective wisdom of 12 people picked at random to serve on a jury is too often underestimated. So is the seriousness with which they (or most of them) take the task.<br /><br />If jurors are being sent to sleep, that is the fault of the lawyers presenting their case. It is in their and their client's (including the State) best interest to cut the crap and get to the point. Pat, jurors are chosen at random from a ballot box. About 40 people sit in the court room and 12 of their names are called at random by the associate taking names from the box.

The complexity of trials is no reason to abolish the jury system. The intelligence and collective wisdom of 12 people picked at random to serve on a jury is too often underestimated. So is the seriousness with which they (or most of them) take the task.

If jurors are being sent to sleep, that is the fault of the lawyers presenting their case. It is in their and their client’s (including the State) best interest to cut the crap and get to the point.

]]> By: George http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/crime-too-complex-for-trial-by-jury/#comment-3004 George Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-3004 Given that jury duty is a significant hardship for many people (self employed for one), having a system that would allow a potential juror to escape duty by spleen venting at interview would ensure that juries were staffed by people too dumb to escape. Given that jury duty is a significant hardship for many people (self employed for one), having a system that would allow a potential juror to escape duty by spleen venting at interview would ensure that juries were staffed by people too dumb to escape.

]]> By: LM http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/crime-too-complex-for-trial-by-jury/#comment-3005 LM Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-3005 Re: Item 15. Greg Barnes “Crime too complex for trial by jury”: Bring on the debate Mr Barnes! The legal profession is such a conservative bunch, change is not something that happens very often. This issue (the relevance/usefulness/justice of juries) has circled my mind since day 1 of Law school, but I have found few among the profession even willing to discuss it. Re: Item 15. Greg Barnes “Crime too complex for trial by jury”: Bring on the debate Mr Barnes! The legal profession is such a conservative bunch, change is not something that happens very often. This issue (the relevance/usefulness/justice of juries) has circled my mind since day 1 of Law school, but I have found few among the profession even willing to discuss it.

]]> By: Pat http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/crime-too-complex-for-trial-by-jury/#comment-3006 Pat Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-3006 One fundamental question is never answered. Jurors are supposed to be chosen at random. How is this done? Does the sheriff use a blindfold? One fundamental question is never answered. Jurors are supposed to be chosen at random. How is this done? Does the sheriff use a blindfold?

]]> By: Engineer http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/10/crime-too-complex-for-trial-by-jury/#comment-3007 Engineer Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-3007 Mr Barnes, one point that the legal "profession" should heed is that, unlike most citizens, they are barred from becoming jurors. This "Us and them" mindset is behind the current practice whereby jurors are subjected to delays, mind-numbing inanities spoken by defence and prosecution, excessive off-topic so-called evidence and general time wasting and frustration. <br /><br />As a two-time juror in lengthy trials, I have found it hard to stay awake, impossible to comprehend the summings-up. Worst, I have found it impossible to deal with some of the other jurors, who for example were much more interested in getting home to the kids or to the Thursday session at the pub and were thus unable to concentrate on the task at hand.<br /><br />Perhaps what is needed is for juries to be selected truly from peers of the accused - educated to similar levels and from related disciplines in the case of fraud or professional issues. <br /><br />I favour consideration of the inquisitorial systems instead of juries for matters such as fraud, because the main issue in determining guilt or innocence seems so often to rest firstly on an ability to understand the evidence.<br /><br />This understanding is clearly not present in the populace at large and may require many years of training and experience.<br /><br />Some kind of change is needed... the question becomes not IF chage is required, but WHAT and WHEN and HOW.<br /><br />Time for a Law Reform Commission discussion apper? Mr Barnes, one point that the legal “profession” should heed is that, unlike most citizens, they are barred from becoming jurors. This “Us and them” mindset is behind the current practice whereby jurors are subjected to delays, mind-numbing inanities spoken by defence and prosecution, excessive off-topic so-called evidence and general time wasting and frustration.

As a two-time juror in lengthy trials, I have found it hard to stay awake, impossible to comprehend the summings-up. Worst, I have found it impossible to deal with some of the other jurors, who for example were much more interested in getting home to the kids or to the Thursday session at the pub and were thus unable to concentrate on the task at hand.

Perhaps what is needed is for juries to be selected truly from peers of the accused - educated to similar levels and from related disciplines in the case of fraud or professional issues.

I favour consideration of the inquisitorial systems instead of juries for matters such as fraud, because the main issue in determining guilt or innocence seems so often to rest firstly on an ability to understand the evidence.

This understanding is clearly not present in the populace at large and may require many years of training and experience.

Some kind of change is needed… the question becomes not IF chage is required, but WHAT and WHEN and HOW.

Time for a Law Reform Commission discussion apper?

]]>