Jeremy's Alibi...

[lookout]

I personally believe that the law is at fault as regards murder trials. If comeone is in trial for his life then I believe that he/she should be convicted on a majority verdict whatever that majority be. The verdict should be imo unanimous.

I agree with you there Grahame. Anything less than a majority throws doubt on the whole case,.well that should be how it's done,,and a re-trial a.s.a.p to include  the views of those who think there's a case for innocence. This case was too one-sided anyway.
I wonder why the two in Jeremys' case disagreed.? I wish I knew.

[susan]

Hi april/Grahame  I always thought the verdict had to be unanimous till I came on the forum .I have read that the jury can be out for days trying to reach a majority decision.

[lookout]

Hi april/Grahame  I always thought the verdict had to be unanimous till I came on the forum .I have read that the jury can be out for days trying to reach a majority decision.

Susan,,from what I'd read about the jury,,it appears that it was a tough decision anyway and they had to stay at a hotel overnight. So why was the outcome so difficult for them.? Someone had doubts.

[Steve_uk]

I personally believe that the law is at fault as regards murder trials. If comeone is in trial for his life then I believe that he/she should be convicted on a majority verdict whatever that majority be. The verdict should be imo unanimous.

Wasn't Ian Huntley convicted on two 11-1 verdicts? The problem is that you might always get one rogue jury member who might never have listened to the evidence for mulitfarious reasons and is determined to throw a spanner in the works. The jury should have the benefit of the judge's summing up and if the defendant is then convicted and there is a general consensus among the public and legal circles that there has been a miscarriage of justice then that is what the appeals process is all about.

[grahameb]

Wasn't Ian Huntley convicted on two 11-1 verdicts? The problem is that you might always get one rogue jury member who might never have listened to the evidence for mulitfarious reasons and is determined to throw a spanner in the works. The jury should have the benefit of the judge's summing up and if the defendant is then convicted and there is a general consensus among the public and legal circles that there has been a miscarriage of justice then that is what the appeals process is all about.

I've sat on juries and I am sure that most of the jurers don't listen to the evidence? They just want to get home and also their expenses which they cam claim at the end of the week.
They elect a foreman who is generally the most assertive one amongst them and some of the less intelligent ones and perhaps up to most of them are generally guided by the most prominent ones amongst them. I am of the opinion anyway that the verdict in the end is generally the opinion of the most intelligent ones among them? Just my opinion of course.

[Jane]

Hi april/Grahame  I always thought the verdict had to be unanimous till I came on the forum .I have read that the jury can be out for days trying to reach a majority decision.

Susan, I have a feeling that at one time, maybe in the days of capital punishment, it had to be a unanimous verdict, the jury being sent back to deliberate until it was, since when it seems to have been at "M' luds'" discretion as to what sort of balance he deems acceptable.

[grahameb]

Wasn't Ian Huntley convicted on two 11-1 verdicts? The problem is that you might always get one rogue jury member who might never have listened to the evidence for mulitfarious reasons and is determined to throw a spanner in the works. The jury should have the benefit of the judge's summing up and if the defendant is then convicted and there is a general consensus among the public and legal circles that there has been a miscarriage of justice then that is what the appeals process is all about.

I believe that it is common practice for the counsel for the defence to automatically immediately to file for an appeal?

[Jane]

I've sat on juries and I am sure that most of the jurers don't listen to the evidence? They just want to get home and also their expenses which they cam claim at the end of the week.
They elect a foreman who is generally the most assertive one amongst them and some of the less intelligent ones and perhaps up to most of them are generally guided by the most prominent ones amongst them. I am of the opinion anyway that the verdict in the end is generally the opinion of the most intelligent ones among them? Just my opinion of course.

Speaking from the experience of having sat on a mock jury in an experiment arranged by the Cambridge University, I would say you're 100% spot on, on all points!!! Are you really saying that I'm assertive!!!!!?

[grahameb]

Speaking from the experience of having sat on a mock jury in an experiment arranged by the Cambridge University, I would say you're 100% spot on, on all points!!! Are you really saying that I'm assertive!!!!!?

No but as in everyday life there develops a kind of pecking order I think?

[-Harters-]

I would say that I 99% don't fully understand what you are saying, but think I 99.9% agree with it!

Good enough for me. 

[ngb1066]

The posts yesterday evening which did not relate to the subject matter of this thread have been moved to the Off Topic board.  Some of the posts contained unacceptable content and haver either been edited or deleted. 

[Caroline R]

I've sat on juries and I am sure that most of the jurers don't listen to the evidence? They just want to get home and also their expenses which they cam claim at the end of the week.
They elect a foreman who is generally the most assertive one amongst them and some of the less intelligent ones and perhaps up to most of them are generally guided by the most prominent ones amongst them. I am of the opinion anyway that the verdict in the end is generally the opinion of the most intelligent ones among them? Just my opinion of course.

I haven't sat on a jury myself but a friend of mine relayed more or less the exact same scenario as above. Also, psychology studies on social influence have shown significant results in experiments that relate to group participation and how certain members of a group can influence the over-all decisions. However, I don't think it is necessarily intelligence per se that is the dominant factor but rather the perceptions held by some members of the group about others. Often those who shout loudest (although not necessarily the most intelligent) get their own way.

[grahameb]

I haven't sat on a jury myself but a friend of mine relayed more or less the exact same scenario as above. Also, psychology studies on social influence have shown significant results in experiments that relate to group participation and how certain members of a group can influence the over-all decisions. However, I don't think it is necessarily intelligence per se that is the dominant factor but rather the perceptions held by some members of the group about others. Often those who shout loudest (although not necessarily the most intelligent) get their own way.

I think some are just more assertive than others?

[lookout]

I haven't sat on a jury myself but a friend of mine relayed more or less the exact same scenario as above. Also, psychology studies on social influence have shown significant results in experiments that relate to group participation and how certain members of a group can influence the over-all decisions. However, I don't think it is necessarily intelligence per se that is the dominant factor but rather the perceptions held by some members of the group about others. Often those who shout loudest (although not necessarily the most intelligent) get their own way.

Empty vessels always make the most noise,Caroline.

[Caroline R]

Empty vessels always make the most noise,Caroline.

Used to be a sailor(ess) lookout and that's quite true!