Review of juries

[philipjohn]

No description provided.

[Floppy]

Not quite sure how to read this. Is the suggestion that jury trial might not be a good idea? What's the alternative that still satisfies the 'trial by your peers' thing?

[philipjohn]

Sorry, yes, that is the suggestion. I've lost the link now but I read
something about the disadvantages and whether it's right in a lot of cases.
I think it's worth reviewing at least, with a full consultation to get
the views of relevant folk - don't think we need to go any further than
asking the question.

[Floppy]

This isn't something I've come across before; is there a reputable organisation calling for reform of the system who we can reference, perhaps?

[PaulJRobinson]

I would have very deep reservations against this move unless, as James
suggests above, there is substantial evidence of a better alternative. I
know there have been arguments for removing trial by jury in cases of
financial fraud because of the low conviction rate and high complexity of
the subject matter for lay people to get their heads around, but other than
those sorts of exceptions it would take a lot to convince me.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 9 January 2014 15:09, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

This isn't something I've come across before; is there a reputable
organisation calling for reform of the system who we can reference, perhaps?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/51#issuecomment-31940121
.

[philipjohn]

Not that I know of, but I will do some research on this and come back to
you!

[PaulJRobinson]

For now I'm ✋ on this

[Floppy]

I'm a 👎 on this currently, but I could support something that talked about improving jury selection in complex trials, so that people truly are tried by their peers.

[philipjohn]

@Floppy That could work. I.e. complex fraud cases having a jury composed mainly of folks what can do numbers and stuff... I'll leave this open for now to remind me to re-work it.

[philipjohn]

Okay, updated wording. That does make more sense I think.

[PaulJRobinson]

👍

[philipjohn]

What do you reckon to this updated wording, @Floppy ?

[Floppy]

👍