The totally off-topic thread

[anat0l]

If I was sitting in the hotseat, I'd hate to be judged by my civillan peers.

It's actually a very serious responsibility, and if you have faith in our justice system, that right to be judged by your fellow members of society is a key aspect of it.

Unfortunately when given that responsibility, many simply don't care (it does not help that many of these jury transgressions are not necessarily punishable e.g. by jail sentence). That makes a right mockery of the system. In addition, people have prejudices and they are instructed to act as if they don't have these (I realise judges - who would be the professional equivalent of a juror - are not necessarily impartial either, contrary to their training and beliefs...)

Hence, I don't know too many who are thrilled to be called on to serve on the jury.

 

[erkpod]

It's actually a very serious responsibility, and if you have faith in our justice system, that right to be judged by your fellow members of society is a key aspect of it.

Unfortunately when given that responsibility, many simply don't care (it does not help that many of these jury transgressions are not necessarily punishable e.g. by jail sentence). That makes a right mockery of the system. In addition, people have prejudices and they are instructed to act as if they don't have these (I realise judges - who would be the professional equivalent of a juror - are not necessarily impartial either, contrary to their training and beliefs...)

Hence, I don't know too many who are thrilled to be called on to serve on the jury.

I'd rather take the chance with a solo judge rather than 12 of my peers who have no legal experience other than watching CSI or Blue Heelers. Nor would I want the jurors to be treating it as a holiday from their Places of Employment or the local shopping centre.

 

[Pushka]

Given your employer doesn't have to pay you on jury duty I'm not surprised that most people aren't interested.

 

[whatmeworry]

If your in the reserve army, the government pays your employer something like $1,393 per week if they call you up.

 

[Rox]

Given your employer doesn't have to pay you on jury duty I'm not surprised that most people aren't interested.

Not quite:
"You will be paid $40 per day for the first 6 days and $80 per day from day seven onwards*
The Juries Act 2000 requires your employer to pay the difference between the amount you receive for jury service and the amount you could reasonably expect to have received if you had not been on jury service"

 

[anat0l]

I'd rather take the chance with a solo judge rather than 12 of my peers who have no legal experience other than watching CSI or Blue Heelers. Nor would I want the jurors to be treating it as a holiday from their Places of Employment or the local shopping centre.

Trial by jury is a common recurring debating topic in high school debating when I was an adjudicator some years ago. Those who argued opposing trial by jury often proposed a model of three to five judges.

 

[mono88]

Not quite:
"You will be paid $40 per day for the first 6 days and $80 per day from day seven onwards*
The Juries Act 2000 requires your employer to pay the difference between the amount you receive for jury service and the amount you could reasonably expect to have received if you had not been on jury service"

Is that the Victorian Act? The situation is a little different in NSW, where some payment by employers is required for a certain period even though a daily allowance is paid.

 

[Rox]

Yes. In Victoria the employer has to pay the difference for as long as the trial lasts .

A bit rough if it is a long trial.

 

[Shelf]

If I was sitting in the hotseat, I'd hate to be judged by my civillan peers.

That reminds me of a saying I heard years ago...

It's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6

 

[drron]

Gee what a nice way for Qatar to celebrate their entry into one World.just got an email saying the Qatar foundation has awarded me $1000000.00.What jolly nice fellows.

 

[Pushka]

Yes. In Victoria the employer has to pay the difference for as long as the trial lasts .

A bit rough if it is a long trial.

Not in South Australia unless the contract/award states that the employer will pay. So employees don't like Jury Duty down here.

 

[JessicaTam]

I would like to sit on a jury, just to be part of the process, in much the same way I have enjoyed working for the AEC in the past.

 

[Pushka]

My mother was on a rape trial. They found the person not guilty, but they found out later he had previously been convicted of rape but the jury wasn't allowed to be informed of that. Maybe he didn't do it again but past behaviour is the best predictor of current/future behaviour.

She doesn't drink but after that trial she made her only exception.

 

[Simo]

Enjoying a single malt 12 year old scotch tonight

 

[anat0l]

Gee what a nice way for Qatar to celebrate their entry into one World.just got an email saying the Qatar foundation has awarded me $1000000.00.What jolly nice fellows.

Hey, and what do you know - QR fly to Lagos!

My mother was on a rape trial. They found the person not guilty, but they found out later he had previously been convicted of rape but the jury wasn't allowed to be informed of that. Maybe he didn't do it again but past behaviour is the best predictor of current/future behaviour.

She doesn't drink but after that trial she made her only exception.

Not knowing the case, but one thing to throw out there is perhaps the prosecution didn't raise this fact (and if behaviour history could be credible evidence in the decision of guilt, it should've been admitted to court as an expert witness).

Meh, I'm not a lawyer... (and damn glad I'm not!)

 

[JessicaTam]

Prior history in not admissible in determining guilt, however will be considered when sentence is handed down.

 

[Pushka]

Prior history in not admissible in determining guilt, however will be considered when sentence is handed down.

Yes. Exactly this. The person who looks after the jury advised them of that when the previous history was made known to them after the verdict had been handed down. The jury was collectively angry as it had come down to "he said-she said" and they were very close to a guilty verdict. That's why mum had her first drink.

 

[Mal]

The court system sucks. But there is no perfect system unfortunately.

 

[anat0l]

Prior history in not admissible in determining guilt, however will be considered when sentence is handed down.

Is there a reason for this?

Has it got to do with the fact that whilst prior history may be a strong indicator of future behaviour, it should not be relied upon (i.e. not only is it possible to "reform" or the reverse, but a jury cannot be trusted to judge a given incident independent of history)? That is, any case should be decided on its merit alone?

Yes. Exactly this. The person who looks after the jury advised them of that when the previous history was made known to them after the verdict had been handed down. The jury was collectively angry as it had come down to "he said-she said" and they were very close to a guilty verdict. That's why mum had her first drink.

Even if they were "very close" that's not good enough (if the criminal justice statutes of "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" are to be adopted). I don't believe necessarily informing them of history would push them over to a guilty verdict, and if it had then it may not be on the merits of the case.

If they were all angry because they were "very close to a guilty verdict" then they made the wrong decision in the first place, or otherwise they would have (or may have) made the wrong decision due to their prejudices and/or against their legal role as a juror.

 

[JessicaTam]

Is there a reason for this?

Has it got to do with the fact that whilst prior history may be a strong indicator of future behaviour, it should not be relied upon (i.e. not only is it possible to "reform" or the reverse, but a jury cannot be trusted to judge a given incident independent of history)? That is, any case should be decided on its merit alone?

Yes. It is so a case may be decided on its merits (just the facts) rather than any prior history. This avoids the "s/he has done it before so must have done it this time" argument.