And soon, only 11 angry men... (2 Viewers)

[Frigid]

Frigid: The question of how many people it would take to no longer require a unanimous verdict is relevant. Surely you'd concede that if the jury was 1 billion people, a 999999999-1 verdict would suffice. Juries are not perfect, of course - some aren't even reasonable - and in 1 billion people you are sure to find someone who is prejudiced enough or illogical enough to come to a certain conclusion which is in contradiction to everyone else.

but Mr Rorix, it's not a numbers game, as I have reiterated over and over. i'm not going to argue a truism that there will probably be one unreasonable dissenter in a billion (fuck me, are there even 1 billion people in Australia!?!).

it is a matter of principle. the end.

 

[santaslayer]

and so there is a right to challenge the juror(s)..pre trial time anyway...


then again, u cant really tell if they're a nutter, aside from appearance...



like i said before, if the individual juror is able to point out any doubt in a case and justify it accordingly, then the case should be extinguished. regardless of numberz. uncertainty about the truth or factuality of existence of something should be easily recognised anyways. if someone can point out a flaw, and the other jurors cannot rebut the said point, then ACQUIT the motherfucker. lol. Rebutting does not involve words like, "what if he/she did that..." or "maybe this happened"...

im all for no juries these days. too much work, too much time, too much cost, no legal background, no idea....

cases may actually finish quicker if the jury didnt exist...
i am well aware of the idea behind the jury system...just my opinion.

1% of criminal matters end up with a jury sitting. (somewhere in hsc hienmann book...or maybe the excel book...who cares )

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The question of how many people it would take to no longer require a unanimous verdict is relevant. Surely you'd concede that if the jury was 1 billion people, a 999999999-1 verdict would suffice. Juries are not perfect, of course - some aren't even reasonable - and in 1 billion people you are sure to find someone who is prejudiced enough or illogical enough to come to a certain conclusion which is in contradiction to everyone else.

The principle is then not unanimousity (if that's a word) but at what number of jurors and what number of dissenters there is sufficient satisfaction of whether or not the crime had been committed to punish the defendant. Surely if there were 2 jurors, and their decision had to be unanimous, this would be less preferable than a larger jury allowing x-1 verdicts.

Thus, it is not a question of no majority verdicts at all, but rather at what point is x-1 sufficient and at what point is x-0 required.

Yes, exactly

 

[ManlyChief]

Thus, it is not a question of no majority verdicts at all, but rather at what point is x-1 sufficient and at what point is x-0 required.

x-0 is required when x = a number of persons small enough to fit in a court room, hear and consider evidence practically and effectively yet still large enough to be reasonably representative of the common cross-section of the community. x = 12 is not per se required, 4 < x > 20 would probably suffice.

Now, this does not mean I support the jury system, I do not - even less now this 11-1 stuff is proposed - but I do support Frigid's position if we must have the system.

That said, I really do love you all and now I'm off to the beach.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

x-0 is required when x = a number of persons small enough to fit in a court room, hear and consider evidence practically and effectively yet still large enough to be reasonably representative of the common cross-section of the community. x = 12 is not per se required, 4 < x > 20 would probably suffice.

Yes, and this magic number of 12 has been apparently plucked from the air and revered as a truism ever since

 

[Frigid]

Yes, and this magic number of 12 has been apparently plucked from the air and revered as a truism ever since

actually i think it had something to do with early Christian thought... 12 being the number of Apostles... they could've made 13, but that would've been bad luck

 

[Omnidragon]

but Mr Rorix, it's not a numbers game, as I have reiterated over and over. i'm not going to argue a truism that there will probably be one unreasonable dissenter in a billion (fuck me, are there even 1 billion people in Australia!?!).

it is a matter of principle. the end.

Exactly... it's all a matter of principle.

There really can be no rationality behind saying 12 does justice, while other numbers don't. Why not 13? Why not 14? Why not 10?

And even if we agree that 12 is the magic number, there's still a lot of uncertainty. Will one group of 12 come up with the same result as a different group of 12? Maybe in the first group, all 12 will think the accused is guilty. In the second group of 12... it's a 10-2 majority.

What can we make of this system? I'm of the view that it's all pretty arbitrary. We just have to live with it. That said, and in light of the fact that I'm a conservative, I can't find too many sound arguments for allowing 11-1 convictions. But ironically, if we have had 11-1 convictions all along, maybe we wouldn't find anything wrong with it.

 

[BillytheFIsh]

Has anyone read the Cheatle case to see if it offers anything to inhibit the introduction of this revolting legislation?

Not for state bodies exercising state jurisdiction. Unless you go so far as to offend the Kable/Fardon standards... which is pretty damn tough (read McHugh in Fardon where he basically says the Kable situation will probably never arise again)

Hell, if NSW decided to establish a Lynch-Mob Tribunal (LMT) chaired by the members of parliament and invest it with the jurisdiction to hear all charges of murder, convictable on a 51% majority, it would be constitutional.

In breach of international law? - yep.
In breach of the separation of powers? - yep - but SoP isn't enshrined at state level (except to Kable extent)
In breach of the constitution? - nup!

Fun living in a country with no bill of rights, huh?

(of course if they did this there would be challenge to it. But on the existing interpretation of the constitution and our current bench, it wouldn't be invalid.)

 

[ManlyChief]

Yes, and this magic number of 12 has been apparently plucked from the air and revered as a truism ever since

The number is not relevant - it is the principle of unanimity that is key.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 would all be fine provided the figure is small enough to fit in a court room, hear and consider evidence practically and effectively yet still large enough to be reasonably representative of the common cross-section of the community ...

 

[erawamai]

No notion that the jury represents a good cross section of society is a false. Todays plural society means that there is no way that a jury is going to represent society.

 

[Soma]

x-0 is required when x = a number of persons small enough to fit in a court room, hear and consider evidence practically and effectively yet still large enough to be reasonably representative of the common cross-section of the community. x = 12 is not per se required, 4 < x > 20 would probably suffice.

4 < x < 20 ??

 

[ManlyChief]

No notion that the jury represents a good cross section of society is a false. Todays plural society means that there is no way that a jury is going to represent society.

A 'reasonably representative of the common cross-section of the community' not 'representing society'.

Let me add again, I support the total abolition of the jury system, but if we are forced to have one, I want a unanimous one!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The number is not relevant - it is the principle of unanimity that is key.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 would all be fine provided the figure is small enough to fit in a court room, hear and consider evidence practically and effectively yet still large enough to be reasonably representative of the common cross-section of the community ...

But the number is relevant - 4 people, however unanimous, bring less knowledge, experience, sense and diversity of views to operate on the situation.

 

[MiuMiu]

Look guys, there are 12 jurors because thats how many seats there are for them in the court room.

 

[erawamai]

Let me add again, I support the total abolition of the jury system, but if we are forced to have one, I want a unanimous one!

I dont think your 'abolition of the jury' argument would go down well with the general population

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It isn't the number that worries me, i.e. if the proposal was to limit juries to 11 people I'd be ok with it, it's more that 1 person in 12 disagrees with the evidence and it is now considered enough...

The problem with getting rid of the jury system is that it is largely a symoblic thing... in that in our nation people are judged by their peers and not some legal monocracy.

 

[Omnidragon]

But the number is relevant - 4 people, however unanimous, bring less knowledge, experience, sense and diversity of views to operate on the situation.

Yea... I mean you could always have 2. Also, 12 doesn't guarantee a representation the cross-section of community. It's all a probability game...

That said... what can we do if we abolish jury system?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That said... what can we do if we abolish jury system?

You just have judges.

 

[Frigid]

I'd like to see 50 person juries with a maximum of 2 dissenters...

i would like to see one billion person juries with a maximum of pi dissenters

 

[BillytheFIsh]

A 'reasonably representative of the common cross-section of the community' not 'representing society'.

Let me add again, I support the total abolition of the jury system, but if we are forced to have one, I want a unanimous one!

You know who doesn't have juries?

South Africa....

Now do we really want a justice system quite like that?