If the list is endless would you be so kind as to list 10 things that you consider would cause real problems ? I don't think the current system is perfect so changes should be considered.
1) Who pays their salary? 2) How do you become an 'expert'? 3) Who polices their qualifications and accreditations? 4) You have an unusual case where someone is accused of buggering a tea pot. Who the hell can be an expert on tea pot shenanigans? 5) Experts are usually single minded people who are proficient in a narrow field. Ie their probably a bit odd. I'd take my chances with the public thanks. 6) Experts can be wrong. Look at some of the shaken child syndrome cases of the past. 7) Bias - Again I will take my chances with the general public, not a gaggle of biased self opinionated experts. The public can spot a chancer just as well as any expert and for a lot less fee 8) Rape - a lot of sexual assualt experts are the ex abused and raped. I wouldnt want them as my jury thanks. 9) got bored...maybe Pete1950 can help me 10) See 9 May not be perfect but it has served us well for many many many years. But hey lets chuck out the baby with the bath water. Plus who you gonna trust to revise it? Politicians? I'd sooner place my trust on the Bar.
One you could add to that list is that what is socially acceptable changes over time and a professional jury would be less exposed to Andy's real world and less reliable on the judgement of what is and is not acceptable to regular people. Especially as seeing loads of messed up stuff numbs you to further trauma. For example I'm not bothered about seeing people's limbs on the floor, however that isn't normal and I should be. Jurors may end up the same
Cor blimey Guvnor, who told you about the tea pot buggery case of 1954 ? Cant say I agree with all your answers and I`m just suggesting being open minded about change could lead to improvements. To answer your points :- 1 the state 2 you pass an exam 3 the exam board 4 possibly no specialist for that one but no reason not to have professional jurors 5 the public can be odd too 6 nobody`s perfect 7 again, experts was just a suggestion, maybe just stick to professional covering all fields 8 see 7 9 did you run out ? 10 see 9 I`m sure Pete 1950 can come up with some more potential problems but no harm in discussing options.
The state? So now you wanna create a quango of 'professional jurors'. Come on. We all know who will be applying for these jobs. It will be the daily mail readership and we will return to hanging kids for stealing apples. So we pay more taxes to fund these. Youre a Tory. :tongue: Pass an exam? Is that all it takes? I can pass exams easily, i have a knack of doing fuck all but enough to pass. I wouldn't want me as a juror. The exam board? Now I know youre taking the piss as much as I am. The public may be odd, but if you were to select 12 the oddness factor would be below 0.5. If you select 12 experts the oddness factor will be unity. I'll take my chances with the general public. Not everyone reads the mail.
Before we get to Crown Court juries, let's take a step down and look at Magistrates' Courts. Traditionally magistrates (Justices of the Peace - JPs) were all unpaid amateurs, i.e. basically jurors. A Mags bench was like a little jury of three. Then many years ago, Stipendiary Magistrates were introduced; stipes were lawyers paid fees or salaries to try Mags cases, in place of JPs. Stipes are now known as District Judge (Mags) or DJ(M). Down the years the DJ(M)s have gradually taken over more and more work from the JPs, especially in the major cities. Using paid professionals costs more in salary terms, but it is much easier to organise the hearing lists, much easier to train them, consistency is much improved, and they are better at handling the more difficult cases. Even so, JPs still do quite a lot of the work even today and in a sense they represent the local community. If paid professional jurors were introduced, I suspect many of the same advantages and drawbacks would arise. For a start it would cost a lot of money, and in the present climate that is out of the question.
independence and non-corruptible - supposedly. That's all I'm saying. Let's keep the system that works probably 99.9% of the time...
