Well, the inquest is happening - but it is going ahead without a jury. What do we all think about this here? Is it a good idea? Does it help or undermine the inquest?
I totally understand the concerns of the judge, but can one not apply that to other areas as well?
I am up for convincing either way :D
I'm not a big fan of trial by jury. ???
I think the concern here might be that people can be swayed by emotional arguments and with a general lack of critical thinking skills they'll conclude that she was murdered by the Illuminati at the request of high-ranking lizard Prince Phillip.
A big problem with juries is that people can be swayed by dominant personalities so there's unlikely to be 12 people coming to independent conclusions. One or two people could possibly sway the rest.
Of course the CTers will see it as a cover up....
.
In the case of the Diana inquest, I agree with the decision to go without a jury. There is no way on Earth that you could find 12 people who did not already have major preconceptions on this matter, and therefore the impartiality of the jury is bound to be rather suspect.
There is something to be said for juries in general though (and I speak with the experience of having been on one in a serious criminal trial): many cases come down to who you believe, and this sometimes requires personal subjective judgements.
I see no reason to suppose that one judge is better qualified to make such decisions than twelve random people. Both groups could be subject to biases of one kind or another, but at least with the jury you have a chance that conflicting biases will cancel each other out.
Some people have put the idea forward that we could have 'professional juries'. People who are trained to be more knowledgeable than the average punter as to how things work; logical fallacies, statistical arguments etc.
The good thing about the current jury system is that if you're guilty but are pleading innocent, a good lawyer can sway things for you. :D
I'm not sure that's a strength though as it could work both ways. :o
I think the rule of thumb is: if you're innocent chose judges, if you're guilty (but pleading innocent) choose trial by jury.
.
What is the difference between an inquest and a trial? I was under the impression that no-one was being accused of anything here, it is simply an investigation into the cause of her death, and so there is no reason for a jury to exist. If the inquest finds that it was not simply an acident then a trial by jury would be appropriate, but at present I don't understand what the debate is about.
Yes, it is an inquest, not a trial. John was straying from the particular to the general there, I think.
But you can have juries in coroner's inquests as well as criminal trials, and that was the point upon which the coroner was required to decide.
Twelve good critical thinkers and true, eh? Like who, I wonderPeople who are trained to be more knowledgeable than the average punter as to how things work; logical fallacies, statistical arguments etc.
My point is that there are some things you just can't determine by critical thinking. Deciding who you want to believe is not always going to be a remorselessly logical process.
Interesting that you're looking at it from the offender's point of view! From a the PoV of a boringly law-abiding citizen, I don't really care what the procedure is, as long as it almost always gets it right - and there have been some horrendous miscarriages of justice in recent times. In a lot of those cases, far from aquitting the guilty, juries were actually swayed into convicting the innocent. Remeber the Birmingham Six?
Then the justice system is seriously screwed. If you're going to convict or acquit suspects based on intuition, prejudice, emotion, speculation and all of the other facets of non-critical thought, you might as well just toss a coin.Originally Posted by Jocky
On one level, I agree.Then the justice system is seriously screwed. If you're going to convict or acquit suspects based on intuition, prejudice, emotion, speculation and all of the other facets of non-critical thought, you might as well just toss a coin
The trouble is that most or even all evidence (in many cases) is simply a series of personal subjective witness testimonies - and that is not the system's fault, it's the way of the world.
If you resolved never to convict on that basis, you would get very few convictions - and there would be a lot more dangerous criminals out there than there are anyway.
On the plus side, John Reid wouldn't get so much flak for not building enough prisons
Yes, I did derail the thread somewhat by posting my own generalisations.
And no, I'm not up on a charge in the near future! :P
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks