Jury Service - What actually happens?

xapprenticex

jessex1990 wrote: »

I was in the public gallery as part of my course and it was a serial pe***phile one, heard evidence from his victims, his ex-wife etc... All very very upsetting to hear exact details of what the sick ****** had done to young children.

The worst part was seeing him allowed out of the courtroom in public during breaks knowing we was near a school.

Yeah i bet its tough sitting through that, I imagine it turned your stomach. For what its worth, as he was found guilty, you can bet that all his fellow inmates are well aware of it too.

RMS2

jessex1990 wrote: »

I know that, it was still unsettling to hear about his abuse and be let to hang out near a school during trial breaks.

You must be young, because you have the guilty until proven innocent mentality.

A person is actually innocent until proven guilty and convicted. I hope you never get called for jury service with an attitude like this. You are meant to listen to all the evidence before making a decision/coming to a conclusion, no matter how serious the crime.

jessex1990

RMS2 wrote: »

You must be young, because you have the guilty until proven innocent mentality.

A person is actually innocent until proven guilty and convicted. I hope you never get called for jury service with an attitude like this. You are meant to listen to all the evidence before making a decision/coming to a conclusion, no matter how serious the crime.

I was pointing out how difficult it is to separate and ignore your emotions to be part of the process! Misinterpret what I said all you wish it doesn't change the fact that this is what people have to wrestle with when they are actually on jury duty. They will find it hard to constantly be reigning themselves back in from coming to conclusions until the evidence has finished being submitted by both sides.

I used the term 'his abuse' with the hindsight that he was convicted, at the time it would have been alleged abuse. The prosecution proved his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt so why are you still arguing about innocence?

Geoff1963

A friend who served on a jury, said that he believed whichever side spoke most recently.
Another said that if serving on a jury, they would always find someone innocent, unless the defendant was a !!!!!phile.

Perhaps the general public needs some training. Perhaps there could be worked examples, like a Driving Licence theory test.

Does a person become a murderer at the time they kill, or at the time they are found guilty ? What if they are freed on appeal, were they a murderer for a time ?

I'm very concerned by the widely-used phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty", because it implies merely a delay before the inevitable. I'd prefer, "Innocent unless proven guilty".

jamesperrett

Geoff1963 wrote: »

Perhaps the general public needs some training. Perhaps there could be worked examples, like a Driving Licence theory test.

Surely that's the job of the judge in the summing up. The judge should tell the jury what criteria they should consider when deciding on the verdict.

There was a Channel 4 series recently which followed a dramatised trial and the processes that the jury went through. I thought it was highly flawed but interesting.

However, I also remember Crown Court from the 70's where a dramatised trial was played out in front of a real jury - this seemed far more rigorously fair than Channel 4's recent attempt and was also recommended watching for my O level Public Affairs course at the time.

polgara

Geoff1963 wrote: »

I'm very concerned by the widely-used phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty", because it implies merely a delay before the inevitable. I'd prefer, "Innocent unless proven guilty".

It isn't a phrase - its an important tenet of law

Geoff1963

its an important tenet of law

I know ; but a character "trait" has an unfortunate implication of badness, and a film "critic" has an unfortunate implication of criticism.
If a person is found not guilty on a majority, or the prosecution didn't think there was a realistic prospect of conviction, or the police couldn't justify a search warrant ; the person in question is officially just as innocent as the rest of us who weren't even suspects. "No smoke without fire", is still in some people's minds ; and they are only really believed innocent, if someone else is convicted.

The judge in Presumed Innocent puts it well, when he asks a prospective juror if the defendant is guilty. The man says he doesn't know, and the judge dismisses him ; then reminds the others that the defendant must be presumed innocent.

I just feel that the word "until", implies that it's going to happen ; as it would in a kangaroo court.