And soon, only 11 angry men... (1 Viewer)

[Omnidragon]

You just have judges.

Gee... that's a scary thought.

Not every judge is in Gleeson CJ's calibre, or possesses Kirby J's policy reasoning. I think Kirby J would make a great politician for Labor or Greens.

 

[ManlyChief]

That said... what can we do if we abolish jury system?

There is the provision in NSW for criminal trials heard on indictment that would normally be tried before a jury to be tried before a judge alone. This system is far, far, far superior for a number of reasons, but the ones I like most are:

* judges are more likely to be able to consider evidence properly according to the relevant law

* judges are more likely to grasp complex defences that rely on very abstract points

* judges, because they must speak and interact with the other officiers of the court are more likely to reveal any bias against the accused, thereby opening up the possibility of an appeal - somthing to which the decisions of a jury are not subject (there is currently a case before the HC on appeal on this very point)

I dont think your 'abolition of the jury' argument would go down well with the general population

yes - but then again i think my views on the 'general public' are pretty clear ...

You know who doesn't have juries?
South Africa....
Now do we really want a justice system quite like that?

Naughty - an unfair comparison! A better one is to compare indictable offences tried before a judge and jury and those tried before a judge alone, in the same jurisdiction, e.g. NSW

 

[Soma]

Judges have to follow the law though a jury does not. For example look at 18th C. England when stealing items worth over 40p was a capital offence and juries would regularly only find the defendant guilty for 39p. Or to revert to crime fiction look at John Grisham's paradigm in 'A Time To Kill', whereby a jury acquits a man who kills his daughter's rapists. A jury has the power to temper the harshness of the law and has done so in many cases, quite rightly in my opinion, where a judge would have no choice to convict, regardless of whether he/she thinks justice has really been served.

 

[erawamai]

Or to revert to crime fiction look at John Grisham's paradigm in 'A Time To Kill', whereby a jury acquits a man who kills his daughter's rapists. A jury has the power to temper the harshness of the law and has done so in many cases, quite rightly in my opinion, where a judge would have no choice to convict, regardless of whether he/she thinks justice has really been served.

Justice is a pretty subjective notion Soma.

The jury in 'A time to kill' essentially vindicated self help. Something that is not supported by the legal system when it comes to criminal law.

Much like the in which a police officer used his police officer status to track down an accused sex offender, who had been accused of sexually assaulting his reletives daughters(?). He then shot the accused him 6 times while be slept with his police gun after being allowed into the house after represnting to the home owner that he was a policeman (The facts are something like that)

A jury acquitted on the basis of self defence. While you can't comment on the offences of the dead man it certainly seems that the jury's action sanctioned vigilante justice and self help.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...005/01/15/1105582768095.html?from=moreStories

A lack of confidence in the courts pervades many discussions. The case of Said Morgan in New South Wales is considered to reflect a lack of confidence in the courts’ ability to deal appropriately with those charged with sexual assault. On 1 August 1997, a jury took little more than half an hour to find Morgan not guilty of murder or manslaughter. Morgan, a former detective, claimed that it was instinct that caused him to shoot an alleged child molester six times in the head with his police-issue revolver (Balogh 1997). The unnamed alleged offender was killed two days after Morgan learned that the man was charged with sexual assaults on three girls aged six, eleven and fourteen. Two of the victims were related to Morgan and the girls claimed that they had suffered four years of abuse including anal intercourse and digital penetration (medical evidence confirmed that abuse had occurred). The alleged perpetrator had threatened to kill the girls if they disclosed the abuse (Balogh 1997).

In an editorial describing the verdict as "astonishing", the Sydney Morning Herald suggested that the fact that "juries simply do not like paedophiles" might have contributed to the decision. Speculating about other factors, the editorial suggested that: "Perhaps the explanation for the outright acquittal was the jury’s unwillingness to leave the question of punishment to the court, as would have occurred had the jury found Mr. Morgan guilty of manslaughter" (Sydney Morning Herald, 4 August 1997, Editorial).

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues/issues14.html

 

[Frigid]

update: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...s-confirmed/2006/04/05/1143916554690.html[/B].

heard it on the vote-for-iemma ad on radio as well.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Mr Iemma is really beginning to annoy me.

 

[wheredanton]

Mr Iemma is really beginning to annoy me.

Not much of a choice is it.

We also love Fred.

oh and David Clarke

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The horror!

 

[hfis]

update: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...916554690.html.

heard it on the vote-for-iemma ad on radio as well.

What the hell? This is crap. Screw complex arguments and reasoning, it just is; if I had the book next to me I'd reference the stats in Brown et al talking about how it's completely unnecessary.

Grrr stupid state govt. Get voted out already.