The Defects of Jury Trials
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 фев 2013
- In the light of the discharge of the jury in the trial of Vicky Pryce, questions have been asked about the value of the jury system. Professor John Spencer discusses the pitfalls of the system over the years, and suggests ways in which the delivery of justice might be improved.
Professor Spencer is Professor of Law, Co-Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies, and Honorary President of the European Criminal Law Association. He has written extensively on criminal justice matters and has been involved in a number of law reform projects.
For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/acade...
Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.
We have a lot of the same problems with jury trials in the US, but judges can be a real problem, too. We recently had a case in Central Texas, where I live, in which a judge made quite a fool of himself by instructing the jury to find the defendant not guilty because he had a divine revelation from God:
"A state district judge in Comal County said God told him to intervene in jury deliberations to sway jurors to return a not guilty verdict in the trial of a Buda woman accused of trafficking a teen girl for sex. Judge Jack Robison apologized to jurors for the interruption, but defended his actions by telling them “when God tells me I gotta do something, I gotta do it,” according to the Herald-Zeitung in New Braunfels. "
I think the problem with both judges and juries is that they're people, and people are profoundly flawed at making good decisions sometimes.
I could listen to this man speak all day long.
This man is god's gift to humanity. Never felt so compelled to listen and soak in the information. Well done sir
Really enjoyable and informative.I feel however that with all its human failings, the jury trial represents the best method.Let's not forget that the original jury decision can be monitored,evaluated and reviewed via the appeals system.At this point the failings pointed out in the discussion can be rectified.
I agree 100% The jury has a huge responsibility to society and the defendant. Without training i see quality control issues. The juror looking at his or her watch realizing they are about to miss an important event, is more likely to cave in to the the majority to order to accommodate their personal schedules.
Excellent. Clear, concise and compulsive viewing. Thank you.
I want to here the rest of those files! Funny and informative!
I always felt uneasy about jury trails. I do not know if i want my life to be decided by Joe the plumber and friends. How do you know the Jury isn't convicting you because they did not like the way you looked? I hear people say " I can tell he is guilty just by looking at that person" all the time and on social media.
What can you expect when you force people into doing something they don't want to do. If that's not bad enough they expect you to reach into your own pocket and only claim back the money you have spent when the trial is over. Whilst forcing you to do something you don't want to do they tell you that if you have anything that can prevent you being a Jury member and you don't disclose it that you are then committing a criminal offence.
What kind of incentive is it to be told you have to attend court and then be told what you can do, ask for permission to go toilet or leave the building so you can have a smoke and wait around for hours upon hours in a cramped waiting room. They expect people to do a good job whilst being forced to do it with no incentive.
kenmat1 "We don't need no damn evidence to convict."
It would seem like that but Jodi really convicted herself with the constant changes in her story. All which the jury was aware off. They shouldn't have viewed her in the way they did but your asking for Human's to stop being Human. Like the rest of us the jury was aware that she killed her boyfriend in cold blood.
I did jury duty once. No-one on the jury had received any training or advice on what their duties were and many people clearly didn't understand what they were expected to do.
Some people were even confusing the terms "evidence" and "proof" and they concluded that this meant that they had to accept anything said in defence as fact, no matter how ridiculous.
The problem with trying to fix this is that any non-random filtering would be a golden opportunity for authoritarian abuse. It would be a small jump from "let's have intelligent people" to "let's have our people".
Selecting the "right" people would also reduce the opportunity for nullification. Can anyone imagine Clive Ponting being acquitted if the jury had been "selected" by the authorities?
Replace them with Artificial Intelligence
@@emp0rizzleactually some states it’s very selective and there is a private jury where it’s hard to get in where you actually know what ur doing
dude knows his stuff
Wow Prof! This really helped me prove why we should not employ the Jury system in South Africa! Thank you so much.
I think that the effectiveness of the jury system is of secondary importance to the nature of the punishments given by the court.
This guy is great!
confidence without substance is a good point of focus
I'd rather let free 10 guilty men than convict 1 innocent. - Andrew Jacksong
Always innocent until proven guilty, which is a birth right. Evidence must prove, beyone a reasonable doubt, that a prosecutor is justified in his accusations.
Always knew it was preposterous to have jurors randomly selected from the electoral role. Even in countries where jurors have to apply to partake in a trial; there are still uncontrollable variables given that each person comes with their own life experiences and subsequent prejudices/ unconscious bias/ personal agendas.
See comment below from Allan Falleur regarding the judge’s religious beliefs. ⚠️
People can think/say whatever they think in the privacy of their own homes to a certain extent but remaining one hundred percent objective, rational and impartial at all times in a professional setting is really quite a uniquely rare skill.
Jury system is stupid.. Only a learned judge or a bench of judges with enough knowledge of law are qualified enough to judge someone's life.. Not a bunch of ignoramus swayed by emotions..
In the Jodi Arias trial:
3 jurors convicted her for having "evil" eyes.
4 jurors convicted her for being taller than Juan Martinez.
2 jurors convicted her for being a Latina.
3 jurors convicted her for using "big words."
Arizona justice: "We don't need no damn evidence to convict."
The Jury system is fine and must remain in place. The issue is in society there are always those who are ignorant or have extreme views exetera. All that is needed is on the first day the Juror arrives at court they complete a questionnaire/test crafted by legal and psychological professionals to weed these people out.
3:55
my goodness, why do my comments get censored on this channel?
But it’s also with judges and prosecutors some dont know what they are doing we had prosecutors who didn’t know even how to bring up the case to the jury or to the judge in a bench trial and they brought up non factual evidence that was dismissed 😅
I totally agree! Tbh, I can't even believe this kind of system exists when I first heard it...
Why can't we videotaped jurors during deliberations
I love his accent. I just love English people. OMG he reminds me Sherlocks Homes they way he speaks.
for this reason, I feel Court has a bias to be unfair
Surely the fact that the jury has an opportunity to ask the Judge to clarify points of law or ask to review evidence during their deliberation is a resounding argument for keeping the current system. It is a fundamental human right for everyone to be judged by 12 of their peers. A few examples of miscarriages or ridiculous events are insufficient to undermine a system which has been adopted in civilized countries around the world. Imperfect it may be, but better than a system where one is judged by a select few from the 'establishment' or what would effectively be a return to an elitist system.
when science was invented, it was to help overcome a overwheming sense of misunderstanding what was the state of the norm
Thee is no reason to give up jury trials unless it can be proved that the wrong judgments greatly outnumber, by a vast margin, the reasonable judgments.
self confidence is crap if world view is subjective and bias
I think very important aspect of public involvement is being ignored here. Considering judicial system of USA, I witnessed prevalence of jury has actually ensured integrity of judicial system, may be at sub conscious level, making same an organic part of society to which people relate to and admire (being them part of it). Random selection of jury from among populace and holding them responsible for making decisions, directly impacts evolution of general conscience to which moral standards of society relate to. Sense of justice prevails generally in consequence of the said and challenges posed by time are addressed on time, keeping pace of general conscience intact with pace of society, making it truly alive. Besides, the same disciplines and educates administrative permanent part of judiciary making it more vigilant and sheathed from errors of personal deflections. Resultantly, society experiences justice as the true bonding factor, faithfully connecting its systems with its individuals - general conscience being foundation of all, to which all relate to, and which is kept alive through fully inconclusive justice system by integrating jury as part of it. Jury serving such an important role, none of the errors mentioned in video carry much weight, although they may be rectified without affecting spirit of jury however.
Jury system is absolute horse shit. Judges can be terrible too but at least they give a reason why they came to a certain decision.
It worked better when there was a property qualification. No doubt right-thinking decent liberals like John Spencer (also known for his views on the age of consent and the EU) would throw their hands up in horror at such an idea and the reality is it isn't going to happen anytime soon. But at least it meant people of (hopefully) some maturity, intelligence and common sense and also a stake in the community so that their inclinations were towards law and order and less likely to be bamboozled by smart barristers paid for out of the public purse (criminal legal aid).