Specialised Courts

[mistermack]

Do you think that we should have more special courts, dealing with complicated issues?

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill 2007 was a proposed Act of Parliament introduced by the United Kingdom government. Its intention was to abolish trials by jury in complex fraud cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by amending section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.[1] The Bill was given its First Reading in the House of Commons on 16 November 2006.[2] In a highly unusual move it was blocked by the House of Lords using a delaying tactic in March 2007. Lord Kingsland said:
On the substance of the matter, as your Lordships are well aware, jury trial has been a central component in the conduct of all serious criminal trials for about the past 700 years. Its contribution to the preservation of the liberty of the individual, and to the legitimacy of Government, is quite incalculable.[3]

I think that this is more down to the fact that lots of members or the House of Lords are/were barristers, and/or fraudsters, rather than a principled stand for jury trials.

I would personally have lots of kinds of special courts, with professional jurors with special knowledge and training.
Fraud is the obvious one, but I would add medical negligence claims, and all accident compensation claims.

Ordinary Judges and Juries just aren't skilled enough for some of these fields.
Medical claims, for example. People without experience can easily be taken in by the perfect hindsight of looking back on an incident. Only someone who has been faced with trying to diagnose an illness, from indistinct symptoms, with the heavy burden of the consequences of getting it wrong, could possibly not be fooled by how easy it all looks in hindsight.

Are there an other fields that you would like to see a special court covering?
The only one that I know of, is family courts, for deciding on the custody of children etc.

Funny their Lordships didn't fiddle that law off the books.

[MrJonno]

I don't think we should have jury trials on anything, I trust the average member of the public to decide on someone's future through rationality and free of prejudice about as much as I trust them to have a gun ie not at all

Trial by jury is for people who fear the state more than the general public while I fear the public far more

[Clinton Huxley]

Dodgy bankers tried by dodgy bankers? Hmmm.

[laklak]

The Mrs. Lak Court. She'll try all cases, and explain exactly what you did wrong, in excruciating detail, over and over and over and over again, until you beg for death.

[JimC]

The JimC court:

"The dog ate your homework, you say? Impertinent dolt! 10 years hard labour! Take him down!"

[Blind groper]

Since the first time I served on jury duty, and witnessed what utter idiots most jurors are, I have thought that professional jurors would be the best way to go. The suggestion of specialised professional jurors with specific training and experience relevant to complex cases makes a lot of sense to me. I admit, I had not taken my thinking to that point. So, well done mistermack for the suggestion.

[MrJonno]

Richard Dawkins had suggested a study where you get 2 sets of 12 independent juries and see how often they agree.

Just from human nature I doubt its going to be 12 intelligent people deciding more likely 1 or 2 charismatic (or threatening) types who may or may not be particuarly bright

[PsychoSerenity]

Richard Dawkins had suggested a study where you get 2 sets of 12 independent juries and see how often they agree.

That would be a very interesting test. To be honest I don't know much about the justice system/juries etc. - but I don't consider the fact that the ideas behind it are centuries old to mean that they are in any way good. I assume there have been various social/psychology studies done, but there's always room for more evidence.

[Pappa]

Richard Dawkins had suggested a study where you get 2 sets of 12 independent juries and see how often they agree.

Just from human nature I doubt its going to be 12 intelligent people deciding more likely 1 or 2 charismatic (or threatening) types who may or may not be particuarly bright

Having sat on a jury I don't believe that's the case. The environment and instructions given help ensure people make good decisions.

[Blind groper]

There is one scientifically established piece of data which supports the idea of jurors. If you test the quality of decision making by an individual versus a group of people, the group will nearly always come up with better decisions. This experiment has been done many times.

However, an educated group will come up with better decisions than one that is not educated in the relevant field. That is the basis of my desire to see professional and trained jurors rather than "12 good men and true" picked at random.

[Blind groper]

Having sat on a jury I don't believe that's the case. The environment and instructions given help ensure people make good decisions.

I have been on a jury twice. The second time, I vehemently disagreed with the other 11, but gave in and voted with them, despite my strong feeling of how wrong the decision was, simply because the case was not serious enough to warrant a new trial.

Both times I sat, we received all kinds of advice and help from te court, and I still witnessed seriously irrational decision making.

[rainbow]

I favour getting back to trial by ordeal.

[JimC]

I favour getting back to trial by ordeal.

Competitive gin drinking?

[subversive science]

There is one scientifically established piece of data which supports the idea of jurors. If you test the quality of decision making by an individual versus a group of people, the group will nearly always come up with better decisions. This experiment has been done many times.

However, an educated group will come up with better decisions than one that is not educated in the relevant field. That is the basis of my desire to see professional and trained jurors rather than "12 good men and true" picked at random.

There is also evidence from behavioral studies showing those not competent in a certain area tend to overestimate their knowledge in said area. I definitely see how having an expert jury in some types of cases could be beneficial.

[mistermack]

When a plane crashes, they don't drag in twelve people off the street, to decide what went wrong.
They have a team of aviation experts, trained in investigating plane crashes.

At the end of it all, they give their verdict.
But if the pilot is charged with manslaughter or something, it has to be back to the men off the street.
It's not very logical. But at least plane crashes are rare.

Fraud trials happen all the time, but it's likely that a lot more are not getting to trial, because the CPS is correctly judging that a jury won't get it, and the fraudster will get off on reasonable doubt.

There's enough work there for expert juries. And we all pay the fraudsters, every time we buy something, or pay our taxes.