BBC News - Coronation Street's Le Vell cleared of child rape DLT next always knew he'd come up smelling of Rosie...
A jury of 8 women and 4 men took less than 3 hours to come up with their verdict on all counts. some feminists are decrying the outcome, but given the demographic of the jury, it *should* be more female sympathetic, and hence the verdict would seem to carry more credibility, in my very limited view. without being present for a whole trial and seeing all of the evidence presented, all outside views would tend to be closer to "trial by Daily Fail". a wrongful accusation of the big beardy fella, Matthew Kelly, seemed to put paid to his career, will it do the same for this fella? Time will tell.
Your comment seems to be referring to some underlying assumption that an all-male jury would be more likely to acquit, and an all-female jury more likely to convict, a male defendant accused of rape. Whilst that assumption might be right, I do not believe it is. I think juries reach a verdict on the evidence - although no-one really knows for sure, because research studies into how juries decide is strictly forbidden.
That’s interesting Pete, do you know why that is? I’ve not done jury service so have no direct experience, but from what I have been told by those who have, there is a very good case for some form of investigation. The stories I heard included: a weak willed jury team being lead by one strong member with very little constructive discussion; jury members stating that they had no interest in the case because they were forced to attend.
It's about the secrecy of the jury room. There has been a principle of English law for many centuries that the deliberations of juries are strictly secret, and the opinions and votes of jury members are never disclosed. No-one, not even the judge, is to know. Importantly the defendant is not to know, and the media & public are not to know anything except the verdict. If any kind of research project were to be authorised, that fundamental principle would be compromised.
I see the logic and value of that approach and can see that if the substance of the jury’s discussions were revealed there would be the potential for all sorts of mischief. However, if there is no view of how the jury is working (by that I mean the process it follows not the actual opinions stated or decisions made) we have no measure of how well the jury works or if it is constructively reviewing the evidence that it has heard. We would have no indication that the sorts of failures that I mentioned before are occurring which could lead to an incorrect verdict. Is there not a case for some form of independent review of the jury’s conduct to ensure that it is working as intended and is not, for example, being dominated by a strong individual with some form of minority interest?
In general terms I belive your sort of right Paul1959, however having done two weeks Jury service a few years back not always the case. We had a very lively lot and all were very opinionated . We had a case where a african male was accused of serval things really, anyway it all boiled down to the the words that he had said to the "victims" weather he "meant it" and "wanted to intimidate them" and "to make them belive he would carry out these actions", regardsless if he did ort did not. We had an African female who did not really speak at all in all other cases and always agreed with the majority, until this case where she came alive and boy did she fire up and some harsh word were said. She then turned around and accussed the majority of those who voted Guilty as being a "racist" and that the verdict had no substance. Well it was on for young and old, the security came into the room and said the Judge had ask for us to keep our voices down. We almost found ourselves on the stand!!!! The Judge decide that we would never agree and it went for a re-trail with another Jury. When your in the jury box the lawyers on both side do a very good job in making you beleive their either not guilty or not and they have scripted there questions very carefully to give there reasons why. At the end the judge then summerises overall and jury goes away to decide. Most of the time they do not tell you of any previous convictions even if its a similar crime.
some reports re the case stated it was doubtful if the young lady in question had ever been penetrated for want of a more delicate way to put it... this raises the old chestnut of anonymity on both sides in cases such as these where allegations, however famous you are - are very damaging as a certain % of mud always sticks...! as said just above barristers are incredibly gifted in the art of wordplay and presenting the most implausible argument in a most believable fashion..
I didnt think they did. I thought the court appointed them. if that was me I would have picked family and friends then job done
you dont just get 12 turn up...........theres more than that, and then a selection process.........bit like footy at school!
[h=2]Empanelling and challenging jurors[edit source | editbeta][/h]As of 16 July 2007, jurors are called by a written summons from the Lord Chancellor, despite the recent reform of that office, executed in practice by a local court officer.[SUP][22][/SUP] A panel of jurors is summoned, having regard to the convenience of the jurors though there are no absolute geographical constraints. There are facilities for the parties to inspect the panel and for individual members to be examined by the judge if there are doubts about their fitness to serve because of lack of proficiency in English or because of physical disability, for example deafness.[SUP][22][/SUP] If there are inadequate jurors on the panel then any person in the vicinity of the court can be summoned to make up the numbers, a process known as "praying a tales".[SUP][23][/SUP] A jury in waiting, of twenty or more jurors is selected from the panel by the clerk of the court. The clerk then calls the name of 12 of them at random, usually by drawing from a shuffled pack of cards with the names written on them. As he calls each name, the juror steps into the jury box. Once the jury box is populated with 12 jurors, the clerk says to the defendant:[SUP][24][/SUP] [John Smith], the names that you are about to hear called are the names of the jurors who are to try you. If therefore you wish to object to them or to any of them, you must do so as they come to the book to be sworn, and before they are sworn, and your objection will be heard. The clerk then calls each juror individually to either affirm or to take the oath, reading from a printed card whilst, if taking an oath, holding a holy book in his right hand (New Testament for those Christians who will swear an oath; Old Testament for Jews; or Koran forMuslims).[SUP][24][/SUP] Some Christians (notably Quakers, Moravians and Jehovah's Witnesses) will not take an oath because it is prohibited in Matthew 5:33-37, and James 5:12. The right of Quakers and Moravians to affirm, rather than swear, when joining a jury was introduced under the Quakers and Moravians Act 1833, and later extended to those who were formerly Quakers or formerly Moravians under the Quakers and Moravians Act 1838. Since then the right to affirm has been extended to anyone who chooses to do so, and no reason for choosing to affirm has to be given. The option to affirm is now commonly used by Quakers,[SUP][25][/SUP] Moravians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some other Christians as well as by atheists and agnostics. Under the Oaths Act 1978, all affirmations are given in the format "I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm"[SUP][26][/SUP]
nahhhh. they just nip in the local boozer and grab the nearest 12.. and remind the judge to see his drink off as hes due back in court
Agree with the utopian view that all jury members are totally unbiased, but each individual has their own prejudices, either conscious or sub-conscious. In my experience, women are more sensitive, empathetic and "tuned" to feminine views and thought processes, and therefore, in the world of flawed individuals will have a pre-wired feminine thought path. In general, as much as our judicial system has its problems, I would guess that the jury selection process will balance out, and in the jury room the jurors will do their best to reach impartial, evidence based decisions.
No they don't. The defendant has the right to object to a certain number of jurors for cause. That means the objection cannot be capricious, and must have some persuasive reason. The picking of the jury is random, and is controlled by no-one, not even the judge.
I don't think anyone imagines all jury members are unbiased as individuals. By having a jury of 12 picked at random, their individual biases will balance out, as you say. Hopefully.
