• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hit This Poll. Down Under.

Haz.

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
1,226
Location
I come from a land downunder.
Justice Peter McClellan says, JURIES should be dumped from criminal trials as forensic and medical evidence gets more complicated and reluctance to serve grows, one of the state's highest-ranking judges believes. he says,

"The complexities can be significant and the issues perplexing even for experts in the relevant field."
.

I agree, especially when judges fall asleep during trials! Give me a trail by jury any day!

Read More, and link to poll:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-of-jury-process/story-e6freuzr-1226221307479
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Back in simpler days, a trial by jury was better than a trial by judge alone. There's a lot of evidence which indicates a trial by jury isn't exactly accurate, particularly as the best jurors are usually dismissed by one side or another. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense wants thinking people on the jury. They want people on the jury whom they can manipulate.

So, is getting rid of the jury system altogether the answer? Not at all! Your Lord Hoo-Hoo McClellan wants to wrestle yet even more power from your people by putting the decisions in the hands of judges alone, either in a panel, or with one or two "assessors," apparently experts who're familiar with the evidence.

The problem I have with the idea of one or two "assessors" is that my only interaction with such court "experts" (three of them) clearly demonstrated that the first was a blithering idiot, and the second and third would not overturn his findings if their lives depended on it, ostensibly out of "professional courtesy."

I'd much rather see the jury system remaining, but with the vetting process reversed so as to ensure jurors are intelligent, objective thinkers, rather than ignorant and compliant. Most of the legal system, both down under as well as here in the U.S. are against it, however, as it would wrest power away from them and give it back to the people.

Fancy that notion, though...
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
From before science fiction was called that (Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) to today, we have been exposed to careful reasaoning about what would happen if juries were replaced by "justice givers" be they human or computer. The outcome is never good. Could it be that every writer is part of a 100+ year global conspiracy? Or is it really just a bad idea? You decide.

That Justice McClellan has not been able to reach the same conclusion as thousands of writers, who were influenced by tens of thousands of philosophers, who all arrived at essentially the same conclusion, suggests that Justice McClellan is out of touch with reality.

I left essentially these comments with the newspaper - now let's see if they get published. BTW, when I voted it was a fairly close race, 56% against doing away with juries and 44% for. That's downright scary.

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Thank you friends. They wont publish my comments any more.

I'm not holding my breath waiting to see if my comment gets published. Seems like they only want local folks to rip the Justice a new one.

stay safe.
 

Haz.

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
1,226
Location
I come from a land downunder.
Verry skittish down under. They are very selective as to what they publish. They wiped me long ago. To those who say we should be up in arms about this, I say; The only arems we can get up in Down Under is the two arms connected to our sholders. We can wave our rights good buy with them.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
since9 said:
I'd much rather see the jury system remaining, but with the vetting process reversed so as to ensure jurors are intelligent, objective thinkers, rather than ignorant and compliant.
What a lovely concept.
How about throwing in (in writing) the notion of a jury of your peers, instead of whoever didn't try hard enough to get out of jury duty?
At the very least, socioeconomic status & educational level should be considered when applying the "reasonable person test, as the realities of life for a high school dropout bruddah in da hood are vastly different from those for a Harvard Med School graduate.
When possible, people with similar training, religion, crime experience, etc. to the person on trial should be included.

idiot judge said:
A trial with only a judge or multiple judges will be far less time consuming and would result in significantly reduced expense to the state
:mad:
I don't think expense should be the primary consideration here.
How about justice? Truth even?

ETA: voting is 60/40 with about 5500 votes, against scrapping juries

ETA2: This is completely wrong. Service is service, no matter if you're employed or not, & should be compensated the same. For trials which go beyond 10 days, the salary is:
$102.50 a day for unemployed jurors and $230.60 a day for those with jobs
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
ETA2: This is completely wrong. Service is service, no matter if you're employed or not, & should be compensated the same. For trials which go beyond 10 days, the salary is:
How may I become a juror full time? :p
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
What a lovely concept.
How about throwing in (in writing) the notion of a jury of your peers, instead of whoever didn't try hard enough to get out of jury duty?
At the very least, socioeconomic status & educational level should be considered when applying the "reasonable person test, as the realities of life for a high school dropout bruddah in da hood are vastly different from those for a Harvard Med School graduate.
When possible, people with similar training, religion, crime experience, etc. to the person on trial should be included.

I like this idea for my socio-economic class, but I'm not sure if gang members would receive justice from other gang members.

I don't think expense should be the primary consideration here.
How about justice? Truth even?

ETA: voting is 60/40 with about 5500 votes, against scrapping juries

ETA2: This is completely wrong. Service is service, no matter if you're employed or not, & should be compensated the same.

Agreed. Service to society should be based upon the average daily wage at poverty level. If you make more than that, you can afford the loss. If you make a lot more than that, you can really afford the loss. If you make nothing, this is an appropriate level of compensation.
 
Top