televised sentencing

[ngb1066]

i understand the argument against a jury full of experts, but for reasons i mentioned is it always safe to have an all lay jury?

I think in the vast majority of cases a lay jury is OK because there are not any complex technical issues involved.  However in more complex cases where it is necessary for the jury to get to grips with detailed scientific or accounting evidence I can see the argument from having one or two on the jury with relevant expertise, as Cliff has suggested.

[Steve A]

i understand the argument against a jury full of experts, but for reasons i mentioned is it always safe to have an all lay jury?

I think in the vast majority of cases a lay jury is OK because there are not any complex technical issues involved.  However in more complex cases where it is necessary for the jury to get to grips with detailed scientific or accounting evidence I can see the argument from having one or two on the jury with relevant expertise, as Cliff has suggested.

Is this not already catered for by the fact that both the defence and prosecution can call experts to explain particular points? Having been explained by either side the Jury can then choose what they believe.

If the defence or the prosecution experts can't convey their opinion to the Jury then that's their problem, the experts for either side can also then be cross-examined by the opposition to question their opinions.

I'm not sure that hand picking experts to sit on a Jury would help, it didn't help when three Judges sat effectively as the Jury for the 2002 appeal.

[ngb1066]

i understand the argument against a jury full of experts, but for reasons i mentioned is it always safe to have an all lay jury?

I think in the vast majority of cases a lay jury is OK because there are not any complex technical issues involved.  However in more complex cases where it is necessary for the jury to get to grips with detailed scientific or accounting evidence I can see the argument from having one or two on the jury with relevant expertise, as Cliff has suggested.

Is this not already catered for by the fact that both the defence and prosecution can call experts to explain particular points? Having been explained by either side the Jury can then choose what they believe.If the defence or the prosecution experts can't convey their opinion to the Jury then that's their problem, the experts for either side can also then be cross-examined by the opposition to question their opinions.

I'm not sure that hand picking experts to sit on a Jury would help, it didn't help when three Judges sat effectively as the Jury for the 2002 appeal.

To an extent you are right that it is the job of counsel to present the evidence and issues in a way which the jury can understand.  In most cases that is fairly easily done.  In the most complex cases however it is very difficult to get some of the technical issues across and it then very much depends upon the composition of the jury whether they really do undertand the issues in the case.

I agree with you that I would not like to leave trials to judges alone.  The jury system is a valuable safeguard and should be defended. 
 

[Steve A]

Why do a panel of Judges decide the outcome of appeals and not a actual jury? Is it a cost saving measure?

[grahameb]

i understand the argument against a jury full of experts, but for reasons i mentioned is it always safe to have an all lay jury?

I think in the vast majority of cases a lay jury is OK because there are not any complex technical issues involved.  However in more complex cases where it is necessary for the jury to get to grips with detailed scientific or accounting evidence I can see the argument from having one or two on the jury with relevant expertise, as Cliff has suggested.

Is this not already catered for by the fact that both the defence and prosecution can call experts to explain particular points? Having been explained by either side the Jury can then choose what they believe.If the defence or the prosecution experts can't convey their opinion to the Jury then that's their problem, the experts for either side can also then be cross-examined by the opposition to question their opinions.

I'm not sure that hand picking experts to sit on a Jury would help, it didn't help when three Judges sat effectively as the Jury for the 2002 appeal.

To an extent you are right that it is the job of counsel to present the evidence and issues in a way which the jury can understand.  In most cases that is fairly easily done.  In the most complex cases however it is very difficult to get some of the technical issues across and it then very much depends upon the composition of the jury whether they really do undertand the issues in the case.

I agree with you that I would not like to leave trials to judges alone.  The jury system is a valuable safeguard and should be defended.

Personally I'd be worried if there were judges only to sit in on trials. I am always doubtful of magistrates courts myself. I'm not quite sure just how unbiased they are?

[grahameb]

Why do a panel of Judges decide the outcome of appeals and not a actual jury? Is it a cost saving measure?

I think that is a good question. Because they are counted as "experts" then their decisions carry more weight. And because of that there is the greater possibility for them being biased and carrying that bias to the general public.

[ngb1066]

i understand the argument against a jury full of experts, but for reasons i mentioned is it always safe to have an all lay jury?

I think in the vast majority of cases a lay jury is OK because there are not any complex technical issues involved.  However in more complex cases where it is necessary for the jury to get to grips with detailed scientific or accounting evidence I can see the argument from having one or two on the jury with relevant expertise, as Cliff has suggested.

Is this not already catered for by the fact that both the defence and prosecution can call experts to explain particular points? Having been explained by either side the Jury can then choose what they believe.If the defence or the prosecution experts can't convey their opinion to the Jury then that's their problem, the experts for either side can also then be cross-examined by the opposition to question their opinions.

I'm not sure that hand picking experts to sit on a Jury would help, it didn't help when three Judges sat effectively as the Jury for the 2002 appeal.

To an extent you are right that it is the job of counsel to present the evidence and issues in a way which the jury can understand.  In most cases that is fairly easily done.  In the most complex cases however it is very difficult to get some of the technical issues across and it then very much depends upon the composition of the jury whether they really do undertand the issues in the case.

I agree with you that I would not like to leave trials to judges alone.  The jury system is a valuable safeguard and should be defended.

Personally I'd be worried if there were judges only to sit in on trials. I am always doubtful of magistrates courts myself. I'm not quite sure just how unbiased they are?

Magistrates are more likely to convict a defendant than a jury.  Magistrates tend to believe police evidence, whereas juries tend to me more sceptical.  Whenever there was a choice between trial by magistrates or by a jury I would usually advise a defendant to elect for jury trial. 

[ngb1066]

Why do a panel of Judges decide the outcome of appeals and not a actual jury? Is it a cost saving measure?

An appeal against conviction from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal is not a rehearing of the case.  The Court of Appeal do not hear the trial evidence again.  They have transcripts of the evidence but their role is to decide if the conviction is unsafe.  Usually the grounds of appeal relate to some irregularity in the trial, typically an error of law by the trial judge or a serious mistake in his summing up to the jury.  In exceptional cases an appeal can be based upon new evidence which was not available at the trial.  That is the only situation where the Court of Appeal will hear witnesses. 

[nugnug]

there is a couple of advantages of a magistrates court lower sentencing power and a magistrate is more likely to cock things up legally speaking than a judge is giving easier grounds for appeal.