Jury deliberations

My son's partner was on a jury a couple of years ago. She said some of the jurors just didn't get that you were restricted to looking only at the evidence and not creating all sorts of scenarios as to what might have happened and what people's motives might have been, etc. etc.

There have been some real horror stories about improper behaviour of jurors - but I'm not quite sure what the answer is. Perhaps it might be a good idea to have a properly qualified person there to give guidance and ensure that misbehaviour doesn't occur.

Isn't the 'properly qualified person' who gives guidance the judge?

I think that if you start suggesting that people who sit on juries aren't competent then you are perhaps at the start of subverting the principle of being tried by your peers which is the basis of juries. It seems to me to be akin to suggesting that some people aren't competent to vote...

It may produce results that are less than desirable but the principles of trial by peers and one man one vote are both integral to our liberties, are they not?

I started this thread because of the JT case - 2 jurors were really concerned and went to the papers but that’s actually illegal to divulge what goes on during deliberations. I also think it’s wrong they don’t have to give reasons for rheir decision and there’s no one in the room to stop them if they decide to toss a coin so that they can go home early

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/02/thorpe-scandal-legacy-law-new-statesman-jury-service-secrecy

No doubt there are occasions when jurors reach an incorrect verdict and times when jurors behave irresponsibly or stupidly. There are almost certainly also instances of corruption and/or intimidation. However, the fact that there are 12 of them helps mitigate such actions as it is difficult to coerce strangers to behave in these particular ways, especially if there are those with a social conscience and a sense of civic duty among them. The fact that jurors are selected at random is also a mitigating factor in these instances.

I can totally see your reason for your question Maryeliza and I think there are far more miscarriages of justice than we imagine and yes I think some people are incompetent to be on juries making these huge decisions however I don’t know the answer
Well Maisie as seen in the Thorpe case the judge can be as much the problem as the jury I think maybe there should be a neutral professional in the room to oversee the jury

Having a neutral observer would cross the true purpose of the jury, they must be allowed to deliberate freely. I am certain some people haven't enough brains to deal with facts sensibly, but that is how it is. There is a Foreman of the jury, chosen by themselves from among their number, whose job is to keep them on track, surely you can hope that one out of 12 is competent.

Very very occasionally someone is just tried by a judge ( when jury tampering is likely). The judge has to give reasons for his verdict - I just wonder why juries don’t have to?

Having once served on a jury: We were well and carefully briefed before the trial about our responsibilities and what we could and could not consider and the judge was very careful and clear in her summing up. We chose a good Foreman.

I found my fellow jurors fully understood the trial and our responsibilities. It was not a difficult case and the decision was unanimous.

Like so many things, it is too easy to concentrate of the few cases that go wrong compared with the vast majority where they system works well. No system is perfect and any change may right the wrongs of the previous system but it will certainly introduce a whole new set of wrongs of its own.

I’ve always been unhappy about the jury system, but I can’t think of an acceptable alternative. Many people aren’t capable of the required logical, detached thought. I’m not really sure that I am, and have always felt that if I was called for jury service I would refuse as a matter of principle and face the consequences. Thank God I am now too old.

My younger son was foreman of a jury when he was in his mid-twenties. I think he does have the right kind of analytical mind.

Perhaps it's like arguing with the referee, maryeliz. You just don't do it. [Grin]

Oops, thread has moved on fast...my last in flippant response to maryeliz at 8.51

The objective of the jury system is to ensure that verdicts are arrived at by people who have no interest (in this sense of the word: *something that brings advantages to or affects someone or something*) in the result of the trial. this is why jurors can be scrutinised by the defence and potential jurors who might have an interest in the verdict can be rejected by them). Jurors have to be impartial.

The minute you introduce a third party there is the potential for them to affect the impartial verdict by influencing the jury. Trial by jury is a defence against the possibility of bias in favour of the State which brings the prosecution. (Trial by jury only being used for criminal trials and criminal trials are always the State v the defendant). So, however sensible it might sound to have a supposedly neutral third person to advise the jury the potential for abuse is there.

Defendants who are found guilty have the opportunity to appeal to a higher court. Their appeals are made on points of law or challenging the evidence brought against them. This should be sufficient. I think that if the reasons for the jury's verdict were made public this would also be used as a grounds for appeal with unforeseen consequences. For a start, would this have an adverse effect on the jury's actual deliberations?

As others have said, the system is by no means perfect but I think that to change it would be very risky.

Sorry, didn't proof read, at least one errant ')' and missing capital letter in there...

I don't think having a "neutral third party" in the room is the answer as some jurors may feel uncomfortable having someone monitor their deliberations.

As I understand it if the jury are unsure on a legal point during their deliberations they can send word to the judge asking for clarification.