TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

View Poll Results: Do you think that Trial by Jury should be abolished?
Yes. 2 22.22%
No. 7 77.78%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
RadioSerenade Offline
26,159.
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
RadioSerenade's Avatar
 
Name: The Limelighter
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Sydney.

Posts: 407
Blog Entries: 30
Join Date: September 8th 2014

Trial by Jury. - December 28th 2015, 11:42 PM

This thread has been labeled as triggering by the original poster or by a Moderator. Please take this into consideration before continuing to read.

I say Triggering with a question mark, given the nature of the mentioned case:

Do you think that trial by jury should be abolished. I do, but will not vote. I reference this case of Robert Xie, a man accused of killing five members of his extended family, in their home in Sydney. This is a particularly heinous crime and it was a very visceral scene, which brought a large amount of attention to the case. Robert Xie has been committed to stand trial THREE TIMES.

The first trial was delayed because of the progress of DNA evidence, they were still waiting for it. The second trial was cancelled because the judge got sick. The third trial was taken down because of A HUNG FUCKING JURY! A hung jury means that the jurors could not agree on the verdict, even after the enforcement of the majority rule, in which they only have to impress eleven jurors. The jury was retired and a retrial was called.

The burden of proof in Australia is with the Prosecution, it is known as Beyond Reasonable Doubt, meaning that if there is any doubt as the guilt of the parties in the jury's minds, then the jury is instructed to hand down a verdict of not guilty. This means that a hung jury should theoretically be a non-guilty verdict and the loss of the Prosecution and the end of the trial. I still don't know why a retrial was called, but it is due for early next year.

In my opinion, juries do not have the ability to understand evidence and legal concepts and they also have the ability to be swayed by lawyers, and lawyers know this. The trial thereby becomes a public speaking contest. Juries are also affected by outside influences. They come into the process, firstly hating jury duty because people constantly complain about it and they find the process time consuming and boring, but secondly, they have a misconception of the happenings of a court.

They are so stupid that they cannot understand that the world is not like SVU. Or CIA, and so before being called, they discuss high profile cases without any qualification and use the words "suspect" and "innocent". Nothing pisses me off more than legal commentary without qualification or understanding.

Not one thing.

Regardless, hit the poll .


02425950695064738395657479136519351798334535362521 43003540126026771622672160419810652263169355188780 38814483140652526168785095552646051071172000997092 91249544378887496062882911725063001303622934916080 25459461494578871427832350829242102091825896753560 43086993801689249889268099510169055919951195027887 17830837018340236474548882222161573228010132974509 27344594504343300901096928025352751833289884461508 94042482650181938515625357963996189939679054966380 03222348723967018485186439059104575627262464195387
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Em. Offline
I don't even like cats
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Em.'s Avatar
 
Name: Emily
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Location: England

Posts: 302
Blog Entries: 2
Join Date: March 20th 2012

Re: Trial by Jury. - December 28th 2015, 11:47 PM

You see I am completely agreeing with everything you said, but then if we just used the law on its own and stuck completely to it, then someone who assisted a suicide yet the person was miserable and unable to live their life through a disease, a judge would have to find them guilty as they can only refer to the law while a jury can vote on their emotional opinion (good and bad thing) so the jury have advantages and disadvantages.

Also the cost of replacing the jury would be insane. For example, if volunteer magistrates were replaced with paid ones it would cost the UK 100 million a year, so how much it would be to replace the jury with trained professionals would be insanely high and thats something the UK shouldnt be focused upon when the NHS isn't getting much money



   
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
MsNobleEleanor Offline
Courting Chivalrous Fidelity

I can't get enough
*********
 
MsNobleEleanor's Avatar
 
Gender: Female
Location: Courting Our Devotion Syncing

Posts: 3,017
Blog Entries: 1425
Join Date: December 29th 2011

Re: Trial by Jury. - December 29th 2015, 12:47 AM

One of the main reason why the jury was let go is because they most likely found the jury to be problematic. Some of the reason why the next court date is in another year is because they need to find people who aren't in connection with knowing much about the case, then they need to interview them. A case in Canada, where someone murdered someone, they scouted out to farmers because they didn't follow the news and they had to in some cases, put them up into hotels during the entire trial. The reason why they do this is because they need to ensure they have a jury that won't cheat or get any information from the public on the trial.

So, they need to basically profile possible juries. They need to make sure they are able to sit in court as a juries and not know anything about the case beforehand, so they can come to a better conclusion. Sometimes they put the case off for a year or two, so the public can forget about it where new news comes in and they get side tracked. Not meaning that it never happened, but they only go by the juriers vote and that vote needs to be solely from what is said and demonstrated in court and not by public.

I am not sure, but it is against the law to tip off a jury. It might be different in Australia.

They also call in a jury for very tough, lengthy, cases; juries duty is to listen and be present in who is right and who is wrong. Sometimes, juries can't come to a conclusion and where it is a mistrial. I am guessing that is what happen in this case, a mistrial happened.

(It's good to place a Triggering prefix on the context that it could be sensitive to others. )


Have questions or would like to chat send me a PM
+
Senior Article Editor | Newsletter Editor | Resource Editor
Outreach Ambassador | Social Media Guru
Community Moderator | Forum Moderator

   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

Re: Trial by Jury. - December 29th 2015, 01:45 AM

Abolished? No. Reformed? Perhaps.


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Trial by Jury. - December 29th 2015, 02:00 PM

I don't like the idea of a jury. I never thought about it much, and never liked it. Courts have a job of being impartial, fact-based, methodical... and the concept of a jury to me always seemed counterproductive to that.

Trial by combat is better. Cos I could knock anyone out. I'm untouchable. lol what a bad joke.


.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.


   
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Proud90sKid Offline
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
Proud90sKid's Avatar
 
Name: .
Gender: Male
Location: US

Posts: 302
Join Date: July 6th 2011

Re: Trial by Jury. - December 29th 2015, 11:03 PM

I think trial by jury is a good thing- but people should have the option to be tried by judge as well. The guilt beyond reasonable doubt requirement is a good thing as well. No criminal justice system works perfectly - and its better that the guilty go free than innocent people get convicted. The thing is that even with the guilt by reasonable doubt being the required level of proof-false convictions do happen.

What do you think a viable alternative to trial by jury would be? Leaving it all up to an individual judge to decide? I'm not sure what to think of whether or not a hung jury should be viewed as not guilty or not. Maybe so in a "majority rules system" like you say about Australia- but in America, verdicts have to be unanimous and while I agree that juries should have the right to acquit a person if they don't like the law, I don't think that one person in the jury should have the right to "break" a verdict that would have otherwise been guilty and acquit the person. I think that in America this problem could be circumvented by not requiring acquittals to be unanimously decided on like guilty verdicts would be. For example, if someone was found not guilty by more than 40 percent of the jurors- then they should be automatically acquitted.

Idk much about Australia's system, but I think that the worst practice of the American criminal justice system is plea bargaining. This is a practice that needs to be abolished as it puts a lot of power in the prosecution's hand. So many innocent people plead guilty to crimes that they did not commit after being threatened with an inflated prison sentence should they lose at trial. Either a trial should be mandatory in every case or prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to make pre-trial bargains. As long as this plea bargaining practice continues to go on- America won't really be a country with a fair justice system that employs a presumption of innocence.
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
RadioSerenade Offline
26,159.
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
RadioSerenade's Avatar
 
Name: The Limelighter
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Sydney.

Posts: 407
Blog Entries: 30
Join Date: September 8th 2014

Re: Trial by Jury. - December 29th 2015, 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud90sKid View Post
I think trial by jury is a good thing- but people should have the option to be tried by judge as well. The guilt beyond reasonable doubt requirement is a good thing as well. No criminal justice system works perfectly - and its better that the guilty go free than innocent people get convicted. The thing is that even with the guilt by reasonable doubt being the required level of proof-false convictions do happen.

What do you think a viable alternative to trial by jury would be? Leaving it all up to an individual judge to decide? I'm not sure what to think of whether or not a hung jury should be viewed as not guilty or not. Maybe so in a "majority rules system" like you say about Australia- but in America, verdicts have to be unanimous and while I agree that juries should have the right to acquit a person if they don't like the law, I don't think that one person in the jury should have the right to "break" a verdict that would have otherwise been guilty and acquit the person. I think that in America this problem could be circumvented by not requiring acquittals to be unanimously decided on like guilty verdicts would be. For example, if someone was found not guilty by more than 40 percent of the jurors- then they should be automatically acquitted.

Idk much about Australia's system, but I think that the worst practice of the American criminal justice system is plea bargaining. This is a practice that needs to be abolished as it puts a lot of power in the prosecution's hand. So many innocent people plead guilty to crimes that they did not commit after being threatened with an inflated prison sentence should they lose at trial. Either a trial should be mandatory in every case or prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to make pre-trial bargains. As long as this plea bargaining practice continues to go on- America won't really be a country with a fair justice system that employs a presumption of innocence.

Plea bargaining has an important role in the criminal justice system. It may be seen as immoral, but if you save the judge, the court and the jury, the arduousness of a trial, then you deserve a discount on your sentence. The prosecution has the burden of proof as well, so if the offender did not commit the offense they have been charged with and they go to trial, the evidence will not possibly be compelling.


02425950695064738395657479136519351798334535362521 43003540126026771622672160419810652263169355188780 38814483140652526168785095552646051071172000997092 91249544378887496062882911725063001303622934916080 25459461494578871427832350829242102091825896753560 43086993801689249889268099510169055919951195027887 17830837018340236474548882222161573228010132974509 27344594504343300901096928025352751833289884461508 94042482650181938515625357963996189939679054966380 03222348723967018485186439059104575627262464195387
   
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
ThisWillDestroyYou's Avatar
 
Name: Michael
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,050
Join Date: July 5th 2011

Re: Trial by Jury. - December 31st 2015, 08:59 PM

What do you suggest instead? So long as humans are involved, there will be room for err.


"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
- Carl Sagan
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Trial by Jury. - January 1st 2016, 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by In the Rye View Post
What do you suggest instead? So long as humans are involved, there will be room for err.
Then we let skynet take over.


.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.


   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
jury, trial

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright 1998-2018, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.