Lawyers - Part 1

[ainwood]

I have always wondered whether the trial-by-jury is the best way to go. In many cases, lay-people are asked to evaluate evidence that they may or may not understand fully, and render a decision that deeply affects the lives of people they have never met.

A couple of cases (from personal experience);
During jury selection for a child abuse case, the defendent is brought in. Someone whispers "He looks like one of those!" This person, with admitted preconceptions and probable prejudice is selected for the jury.
Second case: Two woman on a jury REFUSE to find the defendent guilty, when the evidence is clear-cut. It is not that they think that the person is 'not guilty', but because they think that they would have committed the same crime, in the same situation. (In NZ, you need agreement from all 12 currently).

Obviously, a good judge and good instructions to the jury are important, as is a good foreperson on the jury. But what would a better system be?

The other point thing on this issue that has always intrigued me is with what percentage can the lawyers and judge predict the way that the jury will vote, given that they are the legal experts, and that they have more experience?

 

[Greadius]

Much like Democracy, it is full of flaws, but is undoubtedly the best way to go.

By making people directly responsible for administering justice they give people a vested interest in bringing justice. The biggest problem with jury duty is, like voting, it has been institutionalized into an inconvenience (in America anyway).

I know from what I have heard about jury duty, they drill you heavily on making sure you understand the legal issues; and they try to screen jurors who are going to be incapable of understanding the issue or simply waylay the process. For example, you can't server on a jury in a capital crime if you don't believe in the death penalty. I believe if you are against the law in question you won't be on the jury in general, to escape the situation you brought up...

 

[ainwood]

Not sure of exactly how the jury selection process works in the US, but these two examples are actual events relayed to me by a friend on the jury in NZ. In NZ, the basic process (in smaller cases anyway, not sure about more serious ones), people walk up and the lawyers on either side each have a certain number of "objections". Generally, the object is to try and size people up and stack the jury. Eg. In a child abuse case, the prosecution wants middle-aged woman, and the defendents don't. There is no interviewing of the jurors, except I think they are 'sworn-in'.

The NZ system DOES need a revamp.