Today's page 1 headline: "Put judges into jury rooms, says court chief" (The West, 21 Mar 09). Now why would a judge suggest that?
email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
There's a great furore just now, about people bashing police and being acquitted, on the grounds that it was self defence. Our law allows a person in a fight (call them A1) to make a snap decision, decide that a policeman (call him P1) is using excessive force against a third person (A2). That entitles A1 to use even more force against P1.
(I may be confused here. It's possible that A1 saw P1 using excessive force, so A1 responded even more forcefully against P2, another policeman. But my memory may be faulty. That seems to be just too ridiculous to believe.)
Anyway... Near the end of the trial (of A1 and friends), the judge (big-J) dismissed a juror (little-j1). Big-J told little-j1, get out, you are no longer a member of this jury. Why? As reported in The West, big-J had heard from little-j2 -- another juror -- that little-j1 had already made up her mind. And the judge was only half way through his summing up! How dare a juror make a decision while big-J is still talking! So, out you go!
This big-J is one of the judges who -- it is being suggested -- could sit in with the jury.
"A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render a rational, impartial verdict," according to Wikipedia.
So you have twelve average people sitting together trying to decide a complex case. They have sat through five weeks of evidence. I can see it now...
"Okay," say little-j1 through to little-j11, "We seem to have come to an agreement. And the agreement is..."
"Wait," says little-j12, to the other members of the jury.
"Your honour," whispers little-j12 to the judge, and only to the judge, "I think that they have all made up their minds!"
"How dare they!" shouts the judge. "Off with their heads! Or, at least, leave the room! All of you! Except, of course, for my indecisive little friend, little-j12."
Oh yes, I can really see it working, having a judge sit in a room with the jury.
Have you ever been at a staff meeting where your boss wants you all to take on a little bit of extra work? No-one really wants to agree... But you all feel, that the first person to disagree will be sacked. So what do you do? You all agree with the boss...
Have you ever been in a jury room with the judge? You are all a bit uncertain -- this complex law is new to you. You have spent weeks following the legal illogic. Now you think that you have it all clear...
The judge -- from a position of power, from a position of experience and certainty -- says: You are all wrong.
What do you do?
You back down, you agree, you keep your worries, your different thoughts, to yourself. After all, you think, the judge must know what he's talking about.
Put the judge in with the jury? May as well just let the judge decide the case. The decisions of the jury will be lost, forced out, "corrected". Most jurors will follow the "expert", the judge. Those who do not follow -- will be sent home in disgrace.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment