| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 17:38 - Jan 20 with 901 views | Guthrum |
In the strict sense, the judge is right. Juries should convict or not depending upon the evidence laid before them, not their own feelings or prejudices. It is not even up to them to interpret the law, but merely to decide if it has been broken.
To act otherwise is to open a can of worms. Sure, you might get some juries letting off elderly climate protestors, but perhaps others condemning people on a racial basis, or their immigrant background, or because they have an unsympathetic character.
Justice is supposed to be dispassionate. |  |
|  |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:16 - Jan 20 with 763 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 17:38 - Jan 20 by Guthrum |
In the strict sense, the judge is right. Juries should convict or not depending upon the evidence laid before them, not their own feelings or prejudices. It is not even up to them to interpret the law, but merely to decide if it has been broken.
To act otherwise is to open a can of worms. Sure, you might get some juries letting off elderly climate protestors, but perhaps others condemning people on a racial basis, or their immigrant background, or because they have an unsympathetic character.
Justice is supposed to be dispassionate. |
Absolutely correct. |  |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:17 - Jan 20 with 747 views | J2BLUE |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 17:38 - Jan 20 by Guthrum |
In the strict sense, the judge is right. Juries should convict or not depending upon the evidence laid before them, not their own feelings or prejudices. It is not even up to them to interpret the law, but merely to decide if it has been broken.
To act otherwise is to open a can of worms. Sure, you might get some juries letting off elderly climate protestors, but perhaps others condemning people on a racial basis, or their immigrant background, or because they have an unsympathetic character.
Justice is supposed to be dispassionate. |
Agree. |  |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:26 - Jan 20 with 711 views | Zx1988 |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 17:38 - Jan 20 by Guthrum |
In the strict sense, the judge is right. Juries should convict or not depending upon the evidence laid before them, not their own feelings or prejudices. It is not even up to them to interpret the law, but merely to decide if it has been broken.
To act otherwise is to open a can of worms. Sure, you might get some juries letting off elderly climate protestors, but perhaps others condemning people on a racial basis, or their immigrant background, or because they have an unsympathetic character.
Justice is supposed to be dispassionate. |
I didn't think that was the case at all.
My understanding is that, even if not a matter of statute, the right of juries to convict (or not) according to their conscience is a long-established matter of precedent, as per the recent decision concerning Trudi Warner, as well as the plaque to that extent within the Old Bailey:
https://defendourjuries.net/tr | |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:31 - Jan 20 with 673 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:26 - Jan 20 by Zx1988 |
I didn't think that was the case at all.
My understanding is that, even if not a matter of statute, the right of juries to convict (or not) according to their conscience is a long-established matter of precedent, as per the recent decision concerning Trudi Warner, as well as the plaque to that extent within the Old Bailey:
https://defendourjuries.net/tr |
I didn’t realise that was the case, but you seem to be correct. I suppose there are limits as to how far the ‘Right of Jurors” can be pushed though. |  |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:46 - Jan 20 with 599 views | Guthrum |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:26 - Jan 20 by Zx1988 |
I didn't think that was the case at all.
My understanding is that, even if not a matter of statute, the right of juries to convict (or not) according to their conscience is a long-established matter of precedent, as per the recent decision concerning Trudi Warner, as well as the plaque to that extent within the Old Bailey:
https://defendourjuries.net/tr |
The modern idea of jury trials was still developing in the later 17th century (precedent rarely stretches back that far). In the case cited on the plaque in the Old Bailey, there was a political element to the court's refusal to accept the verdict - namely the conflict between nonconformism and the state-controlled Church of England (something partly left over from the Civil War and which would lead to further trouble 18 years later). By "conscience", it means free of political influence*.
The Warner case seems more like an unnecessary prosecution, unless it can be proved that she actually caused any juror to make a decision against the facts of a case.
* Words have sometimes changed their meanings a bit in 350 years. | |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:48 - Jan 20 with 590 views | Zx1988 |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:46 - Jan 20 by Guthrum |
The modern idea of jury trials was still developing in the later 17th century (precedent rarely stretches back that far). In the case cited on the plaque in the Old Bailey, there was a political element to the court's refusal to accept the verdict - namely the conflict between nonconformism and the state-controlled Church of England (something partly left over from the Civil War and which would lead to further trouble 18 years later). By "conscience", it means free of political influence*.
The Warner case seems more like an unnecessary prosecution, unless it can be proved that she actually caused any juror to make a decision against the facts of a case.
* Words have sometimes changed their meanings a bit in 350 years. |
It's certainly an interesting area. The Wikipedia article (Jury Nullification) is an interesting read. It basically presents it as a byproduct of two facts:
1) A jury cannot be punished for reaching a 'wrong' decision.
2) An individual cannot be tried twice on the same evidence.
I'm surprised we've not heard more about this in the context of the recent Palestine Action arrests. Unless they're not ending up before a jury, those arrests/charges felt like a prime candidate for some conscience-based acquittals. | |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:53 - Jan 20 with 560 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:26 - Jan 20 by Zx1988 |
I didn't think that was the case at all.
My understanding is that, even if not a matter of statute, the right of juries to convict (or not) according to their conscience is a long-established matter of precedent, as per the recent decision concerning Trudi Warner, as well as the plaque to that extent within the Old Bailey:
https://defendourjuries.net/tr |
Nope. They are there to decide guilt or non guilt. Not decide what laws apply or what the laws are. The Judge will literally give guidance on the decisions which, legally, they are tasked with making. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:56 - Jan 20 with 550 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:48 - Jan 20 by Zx1988 |
It's certainly an interesting area. The Wikipedia article (Jury Nullification) is an interesting read. It basically presents it as a byproduct of two facts:
1) A jury cannot be punished for reaching a 'wrong' decision.
2) An individual cannot be tried twice on the same evidence.
I'm surprised we've not heard more about this in the context of the recent Palestine Action arrests. Unless they're not ending up before a jury, those arrests/charges felt like a prime candidate for some conscience-based acquittals. |
You might want to check your sources. They appear to be American references.
Notably, the OP article does not suggest punishment for a wrong decision, but rather gives a warning about deliberately addressing the wrong things having had clear direction from the Judge. | |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 19:01 - Jan 20 with 522 views | Guthrum |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:48 - Jan 20 by Zx1988 |
It's certainly an interesting area. The Wikipedia article (Jury Nullification) is an interesting read. It basically presents it as a byproduct of two facts:
1) A jury cannot be punished for reaching a 'wrong' decision.
2) An individual cannot be tried twice on the same evidence.
I'm surprised we've not heard more about this in the context of the recent Palestine Action arrests. Unless they're not ending up before a jury, those arrests/charges felt like a prime candidate for some conscience-based acquittals. |
They can be punished for going against the juror's oath: "I swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly try the defendant before the court according to the evidence; I will duly administer justice according to law and without partiality, favour or affection; and I will not on any account, at any time whatsoever, disclose the vote or opinion of any member of the jury" (italics mine, wording may vary slightly or be non-religious)
Incorrect decisions are one thing, deliberately going against the facts based upon personal beliefs are very much another. A jury still cannot acquit just because they think the law is wrong. Even in the Sally Challen case (abused woman who killed her husband), the jury had to convict, in line with the facts, but it was quashed by judges - who can bend the law, to an extent - on appeal. | |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 19:01 - Jan 20 with 512 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:16 - Jan 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Absolutely correct. |
Evidence?  |  |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 19:01 - Jan 20 with 521 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
If anything is terrifying it is the law and the application of it. Not the expectation of a jury to dispassionately apply it. |  |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 19:05 - Jan 20 with 486 views | Zx1988 |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 18:56 - Jan 20 by redrickstuhaart |
You might want to check your sources. They appear to be American references.
Notably, the OP article does not suggest punishment for a wrong decision, but rather gives a warning about deliberately addressing the wrong things having had clear direction from the Judge. |
However, on the basis that a jury cannot be asked to explain its reasoning, I struggle to see how such a warning/direction can be enforced.
If a jury cannot be asked to explain its reasoning, and cannot be punished for reaching a decision with which the judge disagrees, I cannot see how a jury/juror could be found in contempt of court for a conscience-based acquittal, so long as they keep their mouths shut. | |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 19:13 - Jan 20 with 446 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 19:05 - Jan 20 by Zx1988 |
However, on the basis that a jury cannot be asked to explain its reasoning, I struggle to see how such a warning/direction can be enforced.
If a jury cannot be asked to explain its reasoning, and cannot be punished for reaching a decision with which the judge disagrees, I cannot see how a jury/juror could be found in contempt of court for a conscience-based acquittal, so long as they keep their mouths shut. |
You may well be right, that evidentially, it would be problematic. Doesnt make the principle wrong though. | |
| |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 19:30 - Jan 20 with 385 views | Kievthegreat |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 17:38 - Jan 20 by Guthrum |
In the strict sense, the judge is right. Juries should convict or not depending upon the evidence laid before them, not their own feelings or prejudices. It is not even up to them to interpret the law, but merely to decide if it has been broken.
To act otherwise is to open a can of worms. Sure, you might get some juries letting off elderly climate protestors, but perhaps others condemning people on a racial basis, or their immigrant background, or because they have an unsympathetic character.
Justice is supposed to be dispassionate. |
It's not opening a can of worms. It is fundamentally a can of worms that has existed for hundreds of years. It has it's good and bad sides of course.
In the lead up to the American civil war, Northern juries on numerous occasions refused to pass guilty verdicts to those accused of assisting escaped slaves as required by the Fugitive Slave act. They massively weakened and undermined an unpopular law. The downside is that it could be used to acquit people accused of lynchings.
A juror can be in hot water if they actively encourage their fellow jurors to vote according to their conscience, against evidence and to deliberately conspire to nullify the verdict. However if they do not seek to undermine the rest of the jury, it is their right to cast the verdict they believe correct and to not be penalised for it. If a juror doesn't have the freedom to make their choice without such a threat, then jury trials are pointless exercises. |  | | |
| Well this is completely normal, and not at all terrifying... on 20:09 - Jan 20 with 324 views | JackNorthStand |
Judges can lead juries already, based on the facts presented. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
