Jury Duty?

[Zardnaar]

So my friend had jury duty. Sexual assault case involving 6 year old child.

The accused was found not guilty on the main charge as two jurors said not guilty or insufficient evidence.

The evidence was basically he said/she said. Jury was 9 women 3 men the not guilty types were 1 of each.

Both apparently basically said not enough evidence to convict. I can somewhat understand that.

When it goes to sexual predators I lean towards things like bronze bulls and fire, heads on pikes. IF the evidence supports it.

I wasn't there in the court room but how convinced wold you personally have to be to vote guilty?

Here there was a murder case almost 30 years ago. I think the accused probably did it but I'm not 100% convinced. In thar situation I would have voted not guilty. Even if person was guilty in that case there was a low chance of reopening. Accused allegedly killed his family including siblings.

More famous case OJ Simpson. He probably did the crime but once again not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. From what I understand I would vote to aquit.

From a moral PoV I would rather be wrong about not guilty than voting to convict someone that was innocent.

So ultimately in a he said/she said situation or circumstantial evidence I would be inclined to aquit at least intellectually (I wasn't in the jury).

Thoughts?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Here's a question: Do jurors there have access to mental health counseling if they have to be on the jury for disturbing cases that involve murder and/or rape?

It's been a fight here, as jurors were expected to sit there and listen to horrifying testimony and look at pictures that would give any rational person nightmares. Sometimes it's video they have to look at. And at the end of the trial they were dismissed with a 'thanks, you can go now' - and nothing was done about those who developed a raft of mental health issues due to the traumatic events they'd had to hear about and look at.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here's a question: Do jurors there have access to mental health counseling if they have to be on the jury for disturbing cases that involve murder and/or rape?

It's been a fight here, as jurors were expected to sit there and listen to horrifying testimony and look at pictures that would give any rational person nightmares. Sometimes it's video they have to look at. And at the end of the trial they were dismissed with a 'thanks, you can go now' - and nothing was done about those who developed a raft of mental health issues due to the traumatic events they'd had to hear about and look at.

Not sure but you can mention that pre trial if you really don't want to view it. Might be able to opt out.

 

[Moriarte]

I wasn't there in the court room but how convinced wold you personally have to be to vote guilty?

Personally, I would have to know how to operate within legal boundaries in order to brand someone guilty of a serious offence, such as this. How can I really establish If the person is guilty when my knowledge of jurisprudence stems from books and movies. I find this idea of laymen making informed life-changing decisions within the web of law rather strange.

 

[IglooDame]

My understanding is that the judge is fairly clear about the legal boundaries, usually explaining "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury.

 

[Tee Kay]

It's interesting that you mentioned 'bronze bulls and fire, heads on pikes'. I wouldn't want to send someone to that fate unless there is 100% confidence that the person is guilty. And you very rarely get 100% confidence.

If you convict an innocent person and they got community service, no big deal (I mean, it is for the convicted, but probably not life-ruining, and the person can still clear their name afterwards). If you convict an innocent person and they spend decades in jail or gets put to death, well, maybe in deliberation you'd reaaaally want to doubly make sure it's truly beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's interesting that you mentioned 'bronze bulls and fire, heads on pikes'. I wouldn't want to send someone to that fate unless there is 100% confidence that the person is guilty. And you very rarely get 100% confidence.

If you convict an innocent person and they got community service, no big deal (I mean, it is for the convicted, but probably not life-ruining, and the person can still clear their name afterwards). If you convict an innocent person and they spend decades in jail or gets put to death, well, maybe in deliberation you'd reaaaally want to doubly make sure it's truly beyond reasonable doubt.

Yeah for tgat type of sentence it's guilty beyond any doubt and for the worst crimes eg Nazi war criminals.

Otherwise opposed to the death penalty.

 

[Synobun]

It's interesting that you mentioned 'bronze bulls and fire, heads on pikes'. I wouldn't want to send someone to that fate unless there is 100% confidence that the person is guilty. And you very rarely get 100% confidence.

I'm not sure it's a good idea regardless of guaranteed guilt. Exacting that kind of suffering and retribution on another human being is moral decay, completely unrelated to the crime of the perpetrator and entirely detrimental to your own internal compass. It's difficult to pat one's back for a robust sense of justice and then gleefully inflict torture and murder on someone in the same breath. There is no gain for anyone involved unless you have a vested interest in seeing someone suffer, and then you are just playing musical chairs in the pro-misery game.

If they're guilty and for whatever reason their continued existence is impossible (this scenario is vanishingly unlikely in a real society, but theoretically), then just be done with it in a humane way. There is no righteousness in what amounts to revenge. We can't proclaim superior morality when we're willing to dispense with that morality when we get a taste for blood ourselves.

 

[amadeus]

More famous case OJ Simpson. He probably did the crime but once again not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. From what I understand I would vote to aquit.

What’s this now?

 

[Gori the Grey]

The glove didn't fit.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

al I know is I'd never want to sit on a jury.

It seems to me you're operating in a paradigm in which the government basically doesn't have a good case to do what it was doing, not 100-percent, otherwise it would just do it and wouldn't need your input. For that it would need Robocob/Judge Dredd levels of competence on doling out punishment I think hardly any government has...

 

[Bamspeedy]

Here's a question: Do jurors there have access to mental health counseling if they have to be on the jury for disturbing cases that involve murder and/or rape?

It's been a fight here, as jurors were expected to sit there and listen to horrifying testimony and look at pictures that would give any rational person nightmares. Sometimes it's video they have to look at. And at the end of the trial they were dismissed with a 'thanks, you can go now' - and nothing was done about those who developed a raft of mental health issues due to the traumatic events they'd had to hear about and look at.

Googling brings me to a NZ government website that says counseling is available for jurors. Whether thats only for federal cases (like it is in the usa), or at any level is unclear (not familiar with nz court levels).

In the usa, if the trial is at state or local level, counseling is very rarely an option (i could probably just say state, because local cases are usually for minor stuff. murder and rape and serious crimes usually elevated to state level)

Heavy Duty: Why Jurors Are Often Left Without Counseling

A 2015 study by the National Center for State Courts found that just Alaska and Texas have laws providing for juror counseling in graphic trials.

www.nbcnews.com

After the trial: support and information | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

Some court cases can be distressing. After the trial, if you feel you need to see a counsellor, the Ministry of Justice can arrange this and will cover the cost.

www.justice.govt.nz

 

[Kyriakos]

Twelve angry newzealanders

 

[Zardnaar]

Twelve angry newzealanders

We call that Friday night drinks.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Not sure but you can mention that pre trial if you really don't want to view it. Might be able to opt out.

I sat on a jury for a request for release by someone who'd been convicted of assaulting a child, who had served his sentence, and one of the first things the judge told the potential jurors was that anyone who thought they couldn't be objective in such a case, for any reason, could be excused immediately, no questions asked. It was just a free "thanks, I'll pass" for anyone who wanted it. There were probably 60 or 70 people in the room, and I'd say maybe a quarter of them got up and left, right then. That didn't excuse them from jury duty, it just sent them back to the waiting room to be available for the next case.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

My mother got sent a summons for jury duty around the time that my aunt (her sister) was dying of cancer. My mother explained that she was caring for her terminally ill sister, who could need the hospital at any time and wouldn't be able to wait. She needed care at home, so there was no way my mother could let her be alone.

Nowadays they would have trotted out a list of "can't she just ____?" or "can't you just ____?" (call an ambulance, hire a nurse, etc. - as if my mother could have done that on a convenience store clerk's wages).

Back then they accepted this as a valid reason to get out of jury duty.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'll never be selected for a jury, but my dream is to start out as the 1 in an 11 to 1 initial vote, bring the 11 to my side, and then change my vote.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'll never be selected for a jury, but my dream is to start out as the 1 in an 11 to 1 initial vote, bring the 11 to my side, and then change my vote.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

al I know is I'd never want to sit on a jury.

It seems to me you're operating in a paradigm in which the government basically doesn't have a good case to do what it was doing, not 100-percent, otherwise it would just do it and wouldn't need your input. For that it would need Robocob/Judge Dredd levels of competence on doling out punishment I think hardly any government has...

That's why they have a right to counsel and the government has to convince a group of random people they got the right person.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

I got a note from my therapist to get my out of Jury duty, I have Autism and Anxiety as well as other mental health conditions.