An interesting take on Trial by Jury by Richard Dawkins in 1997.
The principle argument about the allowing of guilty people to go free is that it is better that ten guilty people are acquited than one innocent man has his liberty taken away.
What if juries don’t assure that?
Does a state employee (Judge) fair better?
Would an elected judge help?
What is the answer to fair, robust trials?
What if one of those ten guilty people damage more than one life in a more severe way than mere incarceration of an innocent does?
Who should be involved in the decision to remove trial by jury? Ministers, elected representatives, the people, select committees…
I would also direct you to this speech: Attorney General’s Speech to the Fraud Advisory Panel on 22 March 2006.
These are not questions I yet know the answer to (and frankly I have no influence in any case), but do tell me what you think!
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Ken on July 29th, 2006 - 6:46 pm
Basically Dawkins is wrong, and is offering us a red herring, because it is not simply about finding the facts of a case, a judge alone could well do that, and one can assume that our judges are reasonably non- biased. The real reason for Trial by Jury is as a last stop protection of the people against the state. Read Spooner who clearly illustrates the reasons for trial by jury and points out the dangers non jury trials.
#2 by Ken on July 29th, 2006 - 10:31 pm
Sorry I was in a rush earlier, Spooner`s argument for trial by jury is quite clear that it is to guard against tyranny. Juries are under attack by those who wish to increase the states powers over the citizenry.
Of course it is quite understandable that once elected a government will claim a mandate for the laws it introduces, but if you consider the facts it is easy to see why this is a misconception: in the first place the present government holds power over 100% of the people, yet it gained power with only around 35% of the votes. When this government produced its raft of promises on which it stood for election it did not include all the laws that it has subsequently introduced. Removing trial by jury would also affect those laws which were introduce by previous administrations so there can be no present day mandate from the people for those laws. We see all to often these days that a law introduced for one reason is then used for an entirely different reason, so it could well be argued that the people would be quite happy to accept laws to control a terrorist suspect, but would not agree with those same laws being used to for instance extradite a business man.
Trial by jury allows the people to have the final say, a government can introduce any law it wishes, but unless a jury agrees the government is powerless to force its will and the law will become unworkable.
Spooner:
“in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.
“The trial by jury,†then, is a “trial by the country†—that is by the people as distinguished from a trial the government.
It was anciently called “trial per pais†that is, “trial by the country.†And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.â€
The object of this trial “by the country,†or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,†judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other — or at least no more accurate — definition of a despotism than this.â€
This government has been extremely authoritarian it has been making serious inroads into the powers of the citizen against the state since 1979, I for one have been looking to the Conservative party to take a stand against these anti-democratic constitutional changing moves by the Blair administration, it would seem that this is a vane hope and the Conservatives intend to continue along the road set out by Blair.
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/TrialByJury.htm