It was a simple typo, I accidentally missed out the 'j'. Thanks for pointing that out.
I do think voting should be restricted too. I would introduce male-only enfranchisement, and restrict it to men over 35.
You're right, the defence can object to a juror. So what? The point is surely that the pool from which the jurors are selected is deficient. The average person, for a mixture of intellectual and emotional reasons, lacks the capability to evaluate the evidence. That's why Julie Mugford's evidence was allowed: it's necessary in 'mass democratic' jury trials to manipulate juries, as they can't assess cases purely on the cold facts.
There's also the problem that majority verdicts are permitted. I believe that is also a modern innovation. Jury verdicts should be unanimous. Nobody should spend a single day in prison on the basis of a head count. The point being that if one or two jurors are skeptical, that is a signal that there is something wrong with the Crown's case. That's the whole point of why we have Twelve Men: it reflects the ancient wisdom that in any group of a dozen or so people, the majority will be conformists (a bit like you, Steve), and then there will be one or two skeptical or neutrally-minded individuals (a bit like me). The minority skeptics like me should never be shouted down - hence the old practice of jury unanimity.
Face it - the jury system has been deliberately eroded and we now have mob justice in all but name.
Wasn't there one jury member in the Ian Huntley case who insisted on his innocence? Surely the judge can use his common sense and ask for a majority verdict should he see fit?
As for myself you don't know me, so can't sit as judge and jury upon me.
