Majority Jury Verdicts (1 Viewer)

[townie]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ed-claims-juror/2005/11/03/1130823347494.html

yay or nay, 11-1, does that sound fair? is it a fundamental right to a unanimous deciscion?

I myself would be wary of 11-1, and wouldnt be happy at all with 10-2. But 11-1 gives scope for when some jurors are stubborn and wont move, i also thing that a majority verdict shouldnt be given as an alternative straight away.

i also support the introduction of the outcome of 'not proven' which i believe they have in scotland from wat i understand, such a verdict means the jury believs that it's quite possible the crime was committed but there just isnt enough evidence, and it leaves the door open for another prosecution

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Majority Verdicts

In the past I have been against majority verdicts. Although my position has not altered to acceptance, I am now not so certain in attacking the proposal. I think that 11-1 (and only 11-1) may be acceptable, given the possibility that one biased, ignorant and/or unintelligent person might fail to perform their duty properly. There are also the possibilities of bribes or intimidation, though this would be unlikely and unusual.

Conversely, it is important to be conscious of the need for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. One wonders how there can be no reasonable doubt when one or more members of a jury still hold doubts.

There is also the concern that allowing a minority view to have no final impact on the majority’s conclusion would leave alternative arguments or perspectives untested. Of course, the majority would not simply ignore the other position. However because the sole dissenter’s deliberations are effectively rendered ultimately redundant (all that is needed is 11 out of 12), the extent to which the majority would pursue and test the minority view would be quite limited.

Still, a majority of 11-1 may accommodate the golden thread of criminal law. Consensus of the minds of eleven citizens is perhaps reasonable – or at least for certain offences. In some situations however, the total number of jurors might drop below 12. For instance, when a juror dies or is discharged in the judge's discretion: s 22 Jury Act. In these circumstances where there is not an entire 12 member panel of jurors the verdict should have to be unanimous. There would simply not be enough people involved in deliberation to ensure accuracy of fact-finding, in my opinion.


"Not proven" verdicts

"Not proven" verdicts are another story -- I am strongly opposed to these. After going through the ordeal of a criminal trial, people need to be able to get on with their life free from prosecution. "Not proven" verdicts undermine the double jeopardy rule. It also leaves the accused scarred -- publicly tainted for the rest of their life with a lingering shadow of guilt.

 

[erawamai]

I think there was a thread on this before. I tend not to be infavour. I think I expressed my reasons in some other thread. Bah huh.

 

[trivia]

this issue makes me think of the movie Twelve Angry Men...

i would tend to be against majority verdicts for some of the reasons moonlight mentioned. there shouldn't be any doubts.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Law waves goodbye to 12 angry men

By Kelly Burke and Michael Pelly
November 10, 2005

Yesterday, the State Government announced plans to allow 11-1 verdicts for all criminal trials, against the recommendation of the NSW Law Reform Commission and to the disgust of the legal profession.

"I would sit the politicians down in a quiet dark room and make them watch 12 Angry Men," said the secretary of the NSW Bar Association, Robert Toner, SC. [...]

Questions remain over how long the jury must deliberate and the Bar Association, the NSW Law Society and the Law Council of Australia were all concerned it could be as little as six hours.

They also questioned the assertion by the Attorney-General, Bob Debus, that he was only bringing NSW into line with the other states, and England and New Zealand. Only Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow majority verdicts for murder cases - after six hours of deliberation. And the High Court has them ruled out for federal offences. [...]

The Law Society's president, John McIntyre, believed the change would "water down the effectiveness of the jury system". "I think the effect of this change is likely to lead to more innocent people being wrongfully convicted." [...]

[A] report on the issue by the Law Reform Commission said the move could short-circuit dissenting voices during deliberation. "Juries may hang for good reasons and usually hang with more than one or two dissenters," it said.

- Full Article, SMH

..........

 

[Lozacious]

"Not proven" verdicts are another story -- I am strongly opposed to these. After going through the ordeal of a criminal trial, people need to be able to get on with their life free from prosecution.

So do the victims of the crime.

"Not proven" verdicts undermine the double jeopardy rule. It also leaves the accused scarred -- publicly tainted for the rest of their life with a lingering shadow of guilt.

Good. Much like anti-terrorism legislation, it has no reason to be abused. You don't tread on anyones toes, and they wont tread on yours. No criminal deserves assistance or compassion. If they do... It isn't the laws function in society to give it to them.

 

[erawamai]

So do the victims of the crime.
You don't tread on anyones toes, and they wont tread on yours. No criminal deserves assistance or compassion. If they do... It isn't the laws function in society to give it to them.

Much like egging peoples houses and not being charged with malicious damage.

195 Maliciously destroying or damaging property
A person who maliciously destroys or damages property belonging to another or to that person and another is liable:

(a) to imprisonment for 5 years, or
(b) if the destruction or damage is caused by means of fire or explosives, to imprisonment for 10 years.

196 Maliciously destroying or damaging property with intent to injure a person
A person who maliciously destroys or damages property, intending by the destruction or damage to cause bodily injury to another, is liable:

(a) to imprisonment for 7 years, or
(b) if the destruction or damage is caused by means of fire or explosives, to imprisonment for 14 years.

 

[hiphophooray123]

loz i'm going to tell you a few terms and concepts to have a read on:

restorative justice
labelling theory
rehabilitation



I agree that no compassion should be shown in terms of terrorism and crimes which are jus cognes, like genocide, but theres more to it then just punishing the criminal in more common crimes

 

[Lozacious]

No way. The law is not there to aid the trespasser, in any way, shape, manner or form.

The law is not there to be a weak entity, it is there to bring criminals to justice.. And is especially not there, to cause more suffering amongst the victims.

Judges really need to put themselves into the shoes of the victims, as opposed to the shoes of the criminal.

The double jeopardy law SHOULD be abolished, especially for crimes like murder. The "no double" rule, should not apply to trial, but to punishment. ie; "No person shall be twice punished for the same crime". That way, it would make sure that there were no abuses of power by the police (no point putting someone to trial if they are not going to receive a punishment) and it also means that serious criminals will not get away.

This way the police can bring forth criminals like murderors more than once, after evidence has been found after the first trial.

Once again.. the law is not there to aid the criminal. In my eyes, once a person commits a serious offence, they lose all rights. They don't follow the law in other areas.. there fore they should not be afforded protection by it in other areas.

 

[hiphophooray123]

just look up those terms and shutup

i take it your a fan of new right criminology?

 

[Lozacious]

just look up those terms and shutup

I don't really see why i should bother looking them up.. I can see what they refer to, and i don't think it would make me change my mind......

 

[SashatheMan]

i think they should chaneg the law so a king of the land casts the final verdict and everyone eboys

 

[iamsickofyear12]

People are stupid and emotional and don't understand the concept of reasonable doubt. If you give people enough evidence they will find guilty anyway.

I think in a lot of cases that 1 juror may just be the one with a bit of sense. There is a certain amount of proof needed and I think most people forget about that sometimes.

There are already plenty of bad jury decisions and making it a majority is just going to increase this number.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Good. Much like anti-terrorism legislation, it has no reason to be abused. You don't tread on anyones toes, and they wont tread on yours. No criminal deserves assistance or compassion. If they do... It isn't the laws function in society to give it to them.

Um, they are not a criminal until they are convicted.

 

[Lozacious]

Um, they are not a criminal until they are convicted.

They are criminal. A conviction just produces a way for them to suffer because of it, and is the states way of recognising that they are criminal.

Saying that they aren't criminal is like saying that someone doesn't have cancer just because they havent been to the doctor for a test yet. As soon as the test indicates that they have Cancer... Then the Cancer magically appears?

 

[erawamai]

They are criminal. A conviction just produces a way for them to suffer because of it, and is the states way of recognising that they are criminal.

Saying that they aren't criminal is like saying that someone doesn't have cancer just because they havent been to the doctor for a test yet. As soon as the test indicates that they have Cancer... Then the Cancer magically appears?

Are you sure you are like white? I mean your perspective on law is very much like sharial/islamic law.

The whole thing of innocent until proven guilty is a very white and very western and very British value which you seem to have decided to disregard or learn about.

 

[Lozacious]

Are you sure that you're like white.. Oh wait lol. You aren't!

 

[erawamai]

Are you sure that you're like white.. Oh wait lol. You aren't!

haha mathmite...I just thought I'd point out that your views on law and order are closer to muslim law than western white british laws and values. It has nothing to do with what race even though it might surprise you.

I mean doesn't it annoy you that sharial law and asian countries advocate your view on the presumption of innocence?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

They are criminal. A conviction just produces a way for them to suffer because of it, and is the states way of recognising that they are criminal.

Saying that they aren't criminal is like saying that someone doesn't have cancer just because they havent been to the doctor for a test yet. As soon as the test indicates that they have Cancer... Then the Cancer magically appears?

Oh right. So everyone who is ever charged with anything is a criminal?

The trial is the test. If they haven't undergone the trial, they are not a criminal.

 

[Lozacious]

Oh right. So everyone who is ever charged with anything is a criminal?

The trial is the test. If they haven't undergone the trial, they are not a criminal.

The trial is the confirmation that they are a criminal. It doesn't mean that they aren't one before-hand.

haha mathmite...I just thought I'd point out that your views on law and order are closer to muslim law than western white british laws and values. It has nothing to do with what race even though it might surprise you.

I mean doesn't it annoy you that sharial law and asian countries advocate your view on the presumption of innocence?

True.