On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:26:14 -0400, Warp wrote:

> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> >  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people.
> 
>> That's what I meant too.
> 
>   In which country is the total amount of votes 12?

For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who 
decided - the supreme court of the US halted the recount of ballots in 
Florida which likely would have changed the outcome of the election.

Now, it's not 12, but I think you can see the parallels.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:18:41 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, have you ever served on a jury?
> 
>   Nope. There's no such thing here.

OK.

>>  In Finland (going from
>> memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong), what sort of criminal
>> justice (and civil justice, for that matter) system is used?
> 
>   If I'm not completely msitaken, usually a judge and a panel of three
> so-called lay judges. In more difficult cases the panel may be expanded
> with one or two experts.
> 
>   The lay judges are elected by the city council (or something like
>   that,
> I'm not completely sure) in 4-year terms.
> 
>   In very trivial cases simpler setups may be used.

OK - this makes some sense to me, assuming you trust your government to 
do the right thing.  In talking about the US courts system, you have to 
keep in mind that when the country was founded, one of the principles was 
that the founders didn't trust the English government, so the power of 
the three branches of government was put into the hands of "the 
people" (historically, though, this was not all people - women couldn't 
vote, slaves couldn't vote, people who didn't own property couldn't vote 
- all initially, and all have changed now).  The founding principles were 
essentially that a government is needed, but that it shouldn't be trusted.

I can honestly say that I would rather have a jury than not if I were 
accused of something serious, because experts, judges, etc *may* have an 
axe to grind on a particular issue.  Over here, case law history sets a 
precedent that can trump legislative processes, so even if I'm innocent, 
an "activist judge" may see the case as an opportunity to push his agenda 
if a guilty verdict is entered, and I'm just "collateral damage" in that 
process.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case 
> goes to the jury. 

I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're 
allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the 
prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire 
jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)

> Come to think of it, though, I think you're right - 
> double jeopardy might enter if he did that.

I believe that's correct, yes. Indeed, the judge isn't even allowed to 
ask the jury *why* they decided the way they did. There was an old case 
where the judge threatened to lock up the jury until they decided the 
suspect was guilty, from which a lot of the current system flows.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case goes
>> to the jury.
> 
> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the
> prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire
> jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)

I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do could 
mislead the jury.  It's gotta be a tough job, presenting your side of the 
case from a factual standpoint but being persuasive that your view of the 
facts is the correct view.

There are days where I think that if I had had the motivation, I could've 
gone into law.  I've been told by more than a few people who do practice 
law that I've got good instincts and a great attention to detail that 
would serve me well in the profession.

Part of the reason, I think, was that in dealing with a difficult person 
(the one who filed the suit), I maintained my objectivity in 
communications - something a lot of people have a difficult time doing 
when confronted with a person who is arrogant.

>> Come to think of it, though, I think you're right - double jeopardy
>> might enter if he did that.
> 
> I believe that's correct, yes. Indeed, the judge isn't even allowed to
> ask the jury *why* they decided the way they did. 

Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the 
jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done (I had a 
question about the procedure and documents we were given - and it was 
hard to discuss that without discussing the verdict because it had to do 
with the definitions of the crime we were given).

> There was an old case
> where the judge threatened to lock up the jury until they decided the
> suspect was guilty, from which a lot of the current system flows.

That doesn't surprise me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote

>   I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
> jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
> sense.

It makes sense for those distrustful of authority and the "educated class",
almost to the point of paranoia. US fits the bill, more or less.

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Having served on a few juries here in the U.S., my experiences tend to confirm
> most of Warp's concerns as valid.  The problem with the alternative is that
> judges are either directly elected or appointed by elected officials who are
> voted into office with even less reasoning and objective scrutiny than one
> finds in a jury trial. 

Strangely those are not the only two options. In the netherlands the 
judges are appointed but not by elected officials. Although some judges 
may be member of a political party, it is considered very bad if that 
would show in one way or another in their judgments. If that would 
happen i think they would loose the job very soon, but I don't know of 
any case. Active judges should be and are above any political party 
struggles. I assume some or most Americans won't believe this could 
work, but it does. You might also assume that this opens up the door for 
corruption, but it doesn't. The judges and prosecutors are a group that 
is not in any way connected to the group that passes laws nor are they 
related to the industry. Trial by jury may have a useful place in a 
system where these groups are linked and judges and politicians both 
have to find money to campaign to be elected, in our system there is no 
place for it. (Which does not stop some politicians that don't 
understand the system to propose it every now and then as a cheap way to 
get votes)

> Suspicions that those in power are not acting with the
> interests of justice as their primary motivating force are often well founded.
> Panels of knowledgeable individuals seeking to act genuinely in the interests of
> justice would indeed be a vast improvement over the current system, but that's
> NOT what would happen were the right to a jury trial to be abolished. The U.S.
> is a fragmented society in which religious, ethnic, racial and class bigotry
> abound (middle-aged white male of above average income speaking). For all of
> its flaws, the jury system is a very necessary check against the unlimited
> exploitation of ordinary people by the privileged classes.
> 
In our system the judges appear to be on average slightly to the left 
(i.e thinking more about the lower classes than favoring companies and 
wealthier people) with respect to the general population. So there is 
some sort of natural balance, because the latter group can speak for 
themselves. I can see your point that only abolishing the jury, without 
a thorough reform of the whole system, might not be a good idea in the US.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>  Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
>> being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals
> 
> Good luck finding one of them :-)
> 
In the US that might be a problem, but here I don't see the problem 
(meaning that I met quite a few).

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case goes
>>> to the jury.
>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the
>> prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire
>> jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
> 
> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do could 
> mislead the jury. 

Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they 
think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom 
prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free, 
not stand trial again.

Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)

> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the 
> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done 

That's different. You brought it up. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
>>>> goes to the jury.
>>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of
>>> the prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the
>>> entire jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>> 
>> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do
>> could mislead the jury.
> 
> Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
> think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
> prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
> not stand trial again.
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)
> 

Deliberate misconduct could get the case dismissed with prejudice. Beyond 
that, if it was a well covered case, the prosecutor could face charges of 
misconduct or contempt of court, and maybe even disbarment.

Chances are, a single prosecutor would only get away with that once.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
>>>> goes to the jury.
>>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of
>>> the prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the
>>> entire jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>> 
>> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do
>> could mislead the jury.
> 
> Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
> think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
> prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
> not stand trial again.
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)

Oh, no, you were clear - the judge's job in part is to make sure that 
both sides play by the rules and prevent this sort of stuff from going on.

>> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the
>> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done
> 
> That's different. You brought it up. :-)

True, I did.  In watching the video of the verdict in the Hans Reiser 
case, I noted that the judge also indicated to the jury that the lawyers 
may want to talk with them, and that he'd be around to talk with them 
until around 5 PM.  The judge I talked with didn't say anything about 
that to us, but when we went to the jury room to gather our belongings, 
the defense lawyer was there to ask questions.  We got some very 
interesting additional insights into the case at that point - like the 
fact that the defendant was in fact guilty, but that the warrant being 
served was for meth production and distribution, and the cops didn't find 
that.  During the case, we never knew what the warrant was for.

It would be interesting, I think, if the jury got to ask questions along 
the way about the facts, kinda like is depicted in TV Grand Jury 
proceedings (now there's something I would be interested in participating 
in to see how it really works).

I know none of that is related to the point about the judge asking the 
jury about the deliberations or the verdict, just seemed a good point to 
throw that in. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message