A Case for Jury Nullification...

[Coito ergo sum]

I trust the average member of the public as much to decide someone fate in jury as I do in trusting them with a firearm, ie no trust at all.

The jury system is an abomination and has no place in a rational society

They are indeed, difficult to trust, but I would much prefer a jury over a bench trial, and only an irrational person or an idiot would choose a judge over a jury in their criminal trial.

Just look at who wants to eliminate juries in criminal cases -- it's always the prosecution or the Crown who wants to get that pesky jury out of the way. The defendant almost always wants the jury. Gee...I wonder why that might be?

[Warren Dew]

I trust the average member of the public as much to decide someone fate in jury as I do in trusting them with a firearm, ie no trust at all.

The jury system is an abomination and has no place in a rational society

They are indeed, difficult to trust, but I would much prefer a jury over a bench trial, and only an irrational person or an idiot would choose a judge over a jury in their criminal trial.

Just look at who wants to eliminate juries in criminal cases -- it's always the prosecution or the Crown who wants to get that pesky jury out of the way. The defendant almost always wants the jury. Gee...I wonder why that might be?

Generally true, but if your defense turns on a somewhat subtle point of law - say, the specific definition of "intent" - a bench trial might be preferable.

Assuming the judge is more competent with respect to the law than a jury, of course, which doesn't always seem to be the case.

[MrJonno]

It's meant to be a jury of your peers , I'm sure even Seth would agree I'm not his peer and he isnt mine. There are some decent members of the public by when it comes to something as important as a murder trial I want those on the jury to be the best of the best. Highly intelligent, the ability to concentrate on the facts, a wide range of experiences and strong in empathy for all those involved. You aren't going to get that from 12 random members of the public

[Seth]

I trust the average member of the public as much to decide someone fate in jury as I do in trusting them with a firearm, ie no trust at all.

The jury system is an abomination and has no place in a rational society

They are indeed, difficult to trust, but I would much prefer a jury over a bench trial, and only an irrational person or an idiot would choose a judge over a jury in their criminal trial.

Just look at who wants to eliminate juries in criminal cases -- it's always the prosecution or the Crown who wants to get that pesky jury out of the way. The defendant almost always wants the jury. Gee...I wonder why that might be?

Generally true, but if your defense turns on a somewhat subtle point of law - say, the specific definition of "intent" - a bench trial might be preferable.

Assuming the judge is more competent with respect to the law than a jury, of course, which doesn't always seem to be the case.

Defendants are often told by defense attorneys that if they are innocent they should ask for a bench trial, but if they are guilty they should opt for a jury.

I'd ask Jonno what alternative system he prefers? Probably the Chinese model where you don't get a trial, just a bullet in the back of the head at the option of whichever bureaucrat you've annoyed prefers.

[MrJonno]

Random selection from a pool of paid professionals with legal training. Justification for any decision this professional jury should be in writing through I would probably keep the individual responses anonymous

[Coito ergo sum]

It's meant to be a jury of your peers , I'm sure even Seth would agree I'm not his peer and he isnt mine. There are some decent members of the public by when it comes to something as important as a murder trial I want those on the jury to be the best of the best. Highly intelligent, the ability to concentrate on the facts, a wide range of experiences and strong in empathy for all those involved. You aren't going to get that from 12 random members of the public

Of course you are his peer. Peer means "person of same legal status." Back in the English common law days, that meant that nobles were judged by other nobles. Commoners by other commoners. It doesn't mean that you're friends.

I, too, would love to have nothing but highly intelligent, fact-intensive persons, etc., and that may not be generally achievable by 12 members of the public. But, it is also not going to be available when you use only judges to make decisions, or when you have professional jurors. Even though a judge may be highly skilled in the law, they are not immune from biases -- just sitting in judgment, day after day, with defendant after defendant rolling in the with the same excuses over and over again creates a bias in a person.

Judges, even liberal ones, tend to be very conservative in their judgments. If you want a lot of compensation in a personal injury case, you want a jury, not a judge. Judge's tend to chisel down the money judgment. If you want a fair shake in a criminal case, you're more likely to get one if you have a lay jury than a professional judge sitting there. That should be obvious -- I mean - if defendants got better shakes from judges, you'd see them clamoring to waive their "right" to jury trials.

[MiM]

What is it with you guys, thinking that beating a guy shitless is a smaller offence than wanking in a tree

[Coito ergo sum]

Random selection from a pool of paid professionals with legal training. Justification for any decision this professional jury should be in writing through I would probably keep the individual responses anonymous

I don't have a principled objection to that, but I'd like to know your examples of the rational countries that utilize such a system. What is the model to be followed?

I could see a system that could work, with proper checks and failsafes, where you have professional jurors. The devil would be in the details, of course, as to what kind of training they would get. What their roles would be (do they just listen, or do they investigate, etc.). What will a trial be like, and how will it be more likely to achieve justice fairly than the present system?

[Coito ergo sum]

What is it with you guys, thinking that beating a guy shitless is a smaller offence than wanking in a tree

To me, beating a guy shitless is not a smaller offense, generally speaking, without context, than wanking in a tree. If someone was in the woods, wanking in a bush, and someone beat the guy up, I would think the wanker rather innocent and the beater rather guilty.

Here, however, the additional facts left out of your statement change my analysis:
1. The wanker was a neighbor, known for curious sexual escapades, which appear to have included inviting underage local teens to participate.
2. The wanker trespassed on private property uninvited, and hid in the bushes outside of the window of a 12 year old girl's bedroom.
3. The wanker wanked while, apparently, peering in through said window.
4. The wanker was discovered, not in a wooded area wanking privately, but rather he was discovered by the child's father and/or brother on their property, just feet away from their daughter/sister, and wanking away.

Frankly -- if I caught someone outside my daughter's window and he started running, I would chase the motherfucker and if I caught him, I'd beat the living piss out of him until he stopped moving so that he could not further run or fight back. I would make sure he wound up in the hands of the police.

[Seth]

Random selection from a pool of paid professionals with legal training. Justification for any decision this professional jury should be in writing through I would probably keep the individual responses anonymous

And what incentive would such "professional jurors" have to be fair and impartial? Why would they not lean in their judgments towards the hand that feeds them...the government...in order to protect their income stream?

We already see this in the civil arbitration system. Many, if not most large companies now force an arbitration clause on consumers that binds the consumer to using an arbitrator chosen by the company and the evidence is clear that "professional arbitrators" favor the hand that feeds them and most often find in favor of the company rather than the consumer.

One of the good things about jury duty is that it's a pain in the ass for everyone and most people come to the jury box with a predisposition to be pissed off at the system, which means the government, which means that they are far less likely to be swayed by sympathy towards the prosecution. This helps to balance out the inherent bias that every defendant faces because many people (particularly statists and proletarian sheeple) stupidly believe that governments always know what's best and right and that if one is accused, one must be guilty because the government would NEVER falsely accuse someone.

Sorry, but a randomly selected citizen jury provides the best (but still imperfect) opportunity for justice to be done by balancing a little better the adversarial balance inherent in the system.

Would that it were truly a random selection though. A computer should randomly select 12 voting-age adults from the county voting registry and those 12 people would serve. No voir dire, no challenges, no changes. Completely random.

[MrJonno]

I think the main alternative other countries have with proper legal systems is multiple judges or a mixture of judges + lay people.

Interesting fact during the 1920-40's in Imperial Japan people in serious cases could choose between jury or judges for capital offences but most choose judges. Considering the nature of the regime that's quite a thought

[Seth]

What is it with you guys, thinking that beating a guy shitless is a smaller offence than wanking in a tree

It's not the wanking that's the problem, it's when, where and why he was doing it that's the problem, and that is a MAJOR problem, particularly in light of the evident history of sexual excess of the "victim" in the past. If he wants to imagine the children next door and wank so long and hard his cock bleeds, gets infected and falls off, that's his right, so long as he does it in the privacy of his home. Criminal trespass, invasion of privacy, sexual exploitation of a child and public indecency all point to a person with a severe sexual psychopathy who is very likely actively dangerous to others, and therefore needs to be persuaded not to escalate his behavior.

...or something.

[Seth]

I think the main alternative other countries have with proper legal systems is multiple judges or a mixture of judges + lay people.

Interesting fact during the 1920-40's in Imperial Japan people in serious cases could choose between jury or judges for capital offences but most choose judges. Considering the nature of the regime that's quite a thought

It depends on the level of trust in the judicial system, and every defendant has the right to a bench trial rather than a jury trial already.

"Multiple judges" is usually called a "Star Chamber." The USSR used that system to good effect during Stalin's regime...at least in his opinion...which resulted in 40 million people being doomed to horrible deaths.

Juries are a check and balance on the inherent power and influence of government.

[MiM]

Frankly -- if I caught someone outside my daughter's window and he started running, I would chase the motherfucker and if I caught him, I'd beat the living piss out of him until he stopped moving so that he could not further run or fight back. I would make sure he wound up in the hands of the police.

Then you'll be highly likely to badly beat up your daughters boyfriend, 15 years from now. I'm sure she will appreciate your protectiveness.

Those additional facts actually don't mean that much. Emotionally, yes, but getting angry or upset is no reason to beat up someone. Ther's not much of a rational reason in there to see the guy as an actual threat (there and then on the spot, any later threat should be left to the legal system to handle). And none at all once he started running.

[Warren Dew]

What is it with you guys, thinking that beating a guy shitless is a smaller offence than wanking in a tree

To me, beating a guy shitless is not a smaller offense, generally speaking, without context, than wanking in a tree. If someone was in the woods, wanking in a bush, and someone beat the guy up, I would think the wanker rather innocent and the beater rather guilty.

Here, however, the additional facts left out of your statement change my analysis:
1. The wanker was a neighbor, known for curious sexual escapades, which appear to have included inviting underage local teens to participate.

If what he was doing was illegal, then complain and prosecute him for that. If not, then his personal habits are no business of his neighbors.

2. The wanker trespassed on private property uninvited, and hid in the bushes outside of the window of a 12 year old girl's bedroom.
3. The wanker wanked while, apparently, peering in through said window.
4. The wanker was discovered, not in a wooded area wanking privately, but rather he was discovered by the child's father and/or brother on their property, just feet away from their daughter/sister, and wanking away.

These points are more valid, especially regarding the trespassing.