Was gonna file this under another bit of Jenkins nonsense but actually he does point out some real issues with it. I’ve always considered it a fundamental cornerstone of the justice system but not really examined why or whether better things are available.
That said, if your aim is to build a better justice system then dropping juries as part of a cost saving exercise isn’t going to achieve that.
AI judges in our lifetime I reckon
The Channel 4 show he mentioned is definitely worth a watch, it’s shocking how one or two strong personalities can completely change the group’s mind and personal feelings can override evidence to the extent that both juries came to totally different conclusions
You’re right to point that out — the maximum sentence for littering is a fine and not death by hanging as I originally stated. I will update my algorithm to avoid this confusion in future
This is the thing. If you’re proposing dropping them on the basis of serious research and considering the system not fit for purpose etc then that’s one thing. Getting rid of something so fundamental purely to save costs is another thing entirely.
There are loads of criticisms you can make of the jury system - the way the Johnny Depp case turned out in the UK (before a judge only) and the in the USA (jury trial) is a strong example of how a jury can be manipulated away from considering the actual evidence - but as far as I’m aware these cases are outliers and the jury system has generally worked extremely well, with all legal professionals generally in strong favour of it.
The issues Jenkins raises in the article (mainly trial delays) are not the fault of juries either - they are consequences of decades of chronic underfunding in public services, which hardly make them unique in the UK currently. He also seems to be moaning about the fact that lawyers tend to negotiate and plea bargain rather than go to full trail in most cases, when this has always been the case and always will be.
Neither does the article tbh. For all his hot air he doesn’t go into what a ‘better’ system would look like or how it would work in practice and why this would be better. Obviously worth having a sensible conversation if you are proposing a potentially improved solution, but he’s not doing that at all
While arguments against trial by jury have been floating around for a while, I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that more of them have been published in the political press since environmental and anti-genocide protesters have been increasingly aquitted by juries (certainly in comparison to when complex financial fraud cases fell apart).
(I’m not saying that this is why Jenkins’ column was published now, but I do think it’s inevitably going to become part of that push)
That’s a good point. An absolute procedural and legal correctness does not necessarily leave space for a moral one.
I think the fundamental issue with this is that juries, unlike magistrates or judges, have a fundamental right to decide according to their conscience, regardless of the evidence. Seen it in recent cases where the government have tried to criminalise eg climate and palestine protestors, and the jury have just refused to find them guilty regardless of what the legislation says. In that light its a very authoritarian move.
It’s an interesting one. I think getting rid of juries would completely undermine trust in the judicial system. The fact that there is a stochastic element to it isn’t necessarily a bad thing from that point of view. It shows you can’t have a forgone conclusion.
Not going to go into all the reasons why that article is wrong, but one thing I will say is that it is a complete nonsense to suggest that juries are the reason for the backlogs in the court system.
There are overwhelmingly two reasons why jury trials are delayed- not enough judges and not enough lawyers. Both of these are a result of decades of underinvestment in the criminal justice system. Juries are the one part of the system which is essentially free - there is no shortage of them.
Since the 90s successive governments have refused to increase legal aid rates in line even with inflation, so increasingly people have left the profession. Since austerity governments have refused to appoint enough Crown Court judges (because they have to be paid, like any other state employees). A backlog has steadily built up because there are not enough judges to try cases and not enough solicitors and, particularly, barristers to appear in them. This was massively worsened during lockdown and little has been done since to correct it. Even now, when the government claims to want to reduce waiting times, I know for a fact that they are denying courts the funds to use part-time judges to staff courts.
Go to any Crown Court in the country and you will find a third of the courtrooms sitting empty- like hospital wards with no doctors or nurses to staff them whilst sick people sit outside in ambulances waiting to be treated.
AI dead victims are already here
I’m at the stage now where no piece of news out of America could conceivably surprise me.
