Should we get rid of juries?

[FascistLibertarian]

I dont really see the point in them. They are not legal experts (like judges). The process of getting them is expensive and time consuming. And lawyers can sway them with pretty arguements. The only people who probably want juries are the laywers and the guilty.

Our legal system needs dramatic reform. And I feel that getting rid of juries is one of the first steps.

[Mad_Michael]

I dont really see the point in them. They are not legal experts (like judges). The process of getting them is expensive and time consuming. And lawyers can sway them with pretty arguements. The only people who probably want juries are the laywers and the guilty.

Our legal system needs dramatic reform. And I feel that getting rid of juries is one of the first steps.

The jury system has been the bedrock of the Common Law tradition for almost 1000 years now. It (theoretically) prevents the government from abusing their power as investigator, prosecutor and judge by inserting in just one group that doesn't have a direct vested interest in the case and isn't controled by the government.

Now, you have stated that our legal system needs dramatic reform.

Can you give one clear-cut description of what is precisely wrong with it?

It seems from reading your post that you want to get rid of juries because it might save some money. This suggests that you think the problem with the legal system is that it costs too much. If so, why do you ignore cost of private lawyers? They are the single largest cost of the legal system. Juries are cheap compared to the lawyers.

Ergo, if you are truly concerned about the high cost of our legal system, you ought to be proposing some way to limit, cap or reduce law fees. But no, you ignored that and chose to attack the ancient institution of juries. This suggests a ideological motive - a bias against juries, the traditional bulkwark defense of the commoner against the power of the elites.

So it appears to me that you feel that our legal system doesn't protect our elite rulers sufficiently. If that is the case, I agree, getting rid of the jury system is the way to go for that.

(Gosh I hope this isn't going to turn into some argument to free Scooter!)

[M.Dancer]

The opposite of the Jury system is the inquisitional system. That is where the judge or judges question individuals and then lay a charge of guilt.

It is a system that is prone to blackmail and abuse.

Judges are referees ...not prosecuters

[Moxie]

In Canada you are innocent until proven guilty, to remove the choice of a trial by jury would be a grave injustice to the people in Free and Democratic Country. Judges are appointed by political partys, I would never want these individuals to have absolute control of our legal system. I smell the stench of Communsism slash Socialism.

Great posts Mad and Dancer. If Scooter is a communist place her/him in the general population and let them deal with scooter.

[White Doors]

I dont really see the point in them. They are not legal experts (like judges). The process of getting them is expensive and time consuming. And lawyers can sway them with pretty arguements. The only people who probably want juries are the laywers and the guilty.

Our legal system needs dramatic reform. And I feel that getting rid of juries is one of the first steps.

A silly silly thing to do. Juries defend everyone's freedoms.

You need to think this through.

[ScottSA]

I dont really see the point in them. They are not legal experts (like judges). The process of getting them is expensive and time consuming. And lawyers can sway them with pretty arguements. The only people who probably want juries are the laywers and the guilty.

Our legal system needs dramatic reform. And I feel that getting rid of juries is one of the first steps.

That's an ironic position for a self-defined libertarian to take, although since fascists and libertarians are at opposite ends of the traditional political spectrum, I can see that the confusion predates this thread.

[M.Dancer]

I dont really see the point in them. They are not legal experts (like judges). The process of getting them is expensive and time consuming. And lawyers can sway them with pretty arguements. The only people who probably want juries are the laywers and the guilty.

Our legal system needs dramatic reform. And I feel that getting rid of juries is one of the first steps.

That's an ironic position for a self-defined libertarian to take, although since fascists and libertarians are at opposite ends of the traditional political spectrum, I can see that the confusion predates this thread.

yet they are numerous groups who hail themselves a libertarian neo nazis or libertarian national socialists...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_N...ist_Green_Party

http://www.nazi.org/

wingnuts to be sure....

[FascistLibertarian]

Can you give one clear-cut description of what is precisely wrong with it?

$100 million to try Picton. A significant % of our population behind bars. Too many lawyers.

It seems from reading your post that you want to get rid of juries because it might save some money. This suggests that you think the problem with the legal system is that it costs too much. If so, why do you ignore cost of private lawyers? They are the single largest cost of the legal system. Juries are cheap compared to the lawyers.

Heres what I really dont understand. How does the law of supply and demand not apply to lawyers?

How come we have more lawyers in Toronto than there are in either Japan or Korea yet our system moves slower and costs more?

Clearly we should cap the number of lawyers and reform our system to be more like (not totally) Japan's. It will not happen because everyone is to afraid of giving up a little of their due process. We have far too much due process. If you want to change the way judges are appointed that is one thing. Judges are professionals who know, practise, and are trained in the law. Juries are people who can let off defendents who have silkly lawyers.

Ergo, if you are truly concerned about the high cost of our legal system, you ought to be proposing some way to limit, cap or reduce law fees. But no, you ignored that and chose to attack the ancient institution of juries. This suggests a ideological motive - a bias against juries, the traditional bulkwark defense of the commoner against the power of the elites.

The cost of holding people in prison. The problem of too many people being in prison. The problem of too many lawyers charging too much money. These are all important issues. They are just not the current issue.

Juries exist so laywers can try and fool them. Our entire system is based around both sides dogmatically pushing their viewpoint regardless instead of a quest for the truth.

[M.Dancer]

Can you give one clear-cut description of what is precisely wrong with it?

$100 million to try Picton. A significant % of our population behind bars. Too many lawyers.

It seems from reading your post that you want to get rid of juries because it might save some money. This suggests that you think the problem with the legal system is that it costs too much. If so, why do you ignore cost of private lawyers? They are the single largest cost of the legal system. Juries are cheap compared to the lawyers.

Heres what I really dont understand. How does the law of supply and demand not apply to lawyers?

How come we have more lawyers in Toronto than there are in either Japan or Korea yet our system moves slower and costs more?

Clearly we should cap the number of lawyers and reform our system to be more like (not totally) Japan's. It will not happen because everyone is to afraid of giving up a little of their due process. We have far too much due process. If you want to change the way judges are appointed that is one thing. Judges are professionals who know, practise, and are trained in the law. Juries are people who can let off defendents who have silkly lawyers.

Ergo, if you are truly concerned about the high cost of our legal system, you ought to be proposing some way to limit, cap or reduce law fees. But no, you ignored that and chose to attack the ancient institution of juries. This suggests a ideological motive - a bias against juries, the traditional bulkwark defense of the commoner against the power of the elites.

The cost of holding people in prison. The problem of too many people being in prison. The problem of too many lawyers charging too much money. These are all important issues. They are just not the current issue.

Juries exist so laywers can try and fool them. Our entire system is based around both sides dogmatically pushing their viewpoint regardless instead of a quest for the truth.

I would suggest you really don't have a grip on the subject. Most lawyers are not criminal lawyers and your assertion that their job is to fool jurys doesn't deserve a response.

[ScottSA]

Can you give one clear-cut description of what is precisely wrong with it?

$100 million to try Picton. A significant % of our population behind bars. Too many lawyers.

It seems from reading your post that you want to get rid of juries because it might save some money. This suggests that you think the problem with the legal system is that it costs too much. If so, why do you ignore cost of private lawyers? They are the single largest cost of the legal system. Juries are cheap compared to the lawyers.

Heres what I really dont understand. How does the law of supply and demand not apply to lawyers?

How come we have more lawyers in Toronto than there are in either Japan or Korea yet our system moves slower and costs more?

Clearly we should cap the number of lawyers and reform our system to be more like (not totally) Japan's. It will not happen because everyone is to afraid of giving up a little of their due process. We have far too much due process. If you want to change the way judges are appointed that is one thing. Judges are professionals who know, practise, and are trained in the law. Juries are people who can let off defendents who have silkly lawyers.

Ergo, if you are truly concerned about the high cost of our legal system, you ought to be proposing some way to limit, cap or reduce law fees. But no, you ignored that and chose to attack the ancient institution of juries. This suggests a ideological motive - a bias against juries, the traditional bulkwark defense of the commoner against the power of the elites.

The cost of holding people in prison. The problem of too many people being in prison. The problem of too many lawyers charging too much money. These are all important issues. They are just not the current issue.

Juries exist so laywers can try and fool them. Our entire system is based around both sides dogmatically pushing their viewpoint regardless instead of a quest for the truth.

This line of reasoning is hardly libertarian...in fact it's rather elitist. Plato first came up with it, but it trickled down through human praxis in various forms of autocracy and tyranny for centuries upon centuries. I'm not saying it's bad per se...democracy may very well be an anomaly in the pageant of history...but it's about as far from libertarianism as one can get. In a nutshell you're arguing that the masses are too easily fooled to be given the responsibility of administering justice.

What you seem to be in favor of is some form of dispassionate arbiter or Hobbesian Leviathan who can 'know' the truth without the expense and trouble of a trial, or lawyers, or juries. It's been tried before. Most of history involves just exactly that. What Marx called "Asiatic despotism," and what Lenin called 'justice,' both amount to the same thing in the legal context.

[FascistLibertarian]

Or maybe I just favour a scaled back contential system over the current commonwealth one.

This line of reasoning is hardly libertarian...in fact it's rather elitist. Plato first came up with it, but it trickled down through human praxis in various forms of autocracy and tyranny for centuries upon centuries. I'm not saying it's bad per se...democracy may very well be an anomaly in the pageant of history...but it's about as far from libertarianism as one can get. In a nutshell you're arguing that the masses are too easily fooled to be given the responsibility of administering justice.

In regards to Ancient Athens they sure were. I dont even want to go into all the silly things their demo did.

What you seem to be in favor of is some form of dispassionate arbiter or Hobbesian Leviathan who can 'know' the truth without the expense and trouble of a trial, or lawyers, or juries. It's been tried before. Most of history involves just exactly that. What Marx called "Asiatic despotism," and what Lenin called 'justice,' both amount to the same thing in the legal context.

I am not talking about any of this. Im saying the legal system needs to be reformed, not destroyed.

I would suggest you really don't have a grip on the subject. Most lawyers are not criminal lawyers and your assertion that their job is to fool jurys doesn't deserve a response.

All I am saying is that juries dont help justice, they help lawyers and defendents.

Smoke and mirror works a lot better on 12 lay people than on a judge.

[August1991]

Now, you have stated that our legal system needs dramatic reform.

Can you give one clear-cut description of what is precisely wrong with it?

This man shot and killed an 18 year old girl. Because it has taken 20 months to come to trial, he will get 40 months applied to his sentence. If the defence succeeds, he will be free in about 18 months. All of this is due to the lengthy waiting times before accused come to trial.

Canada's criminal justice system suffers from numerous problems. One of them is the unforgiveable waiting times.

It seems from reading your post that you want to get rid of juries because it might save some money. This suggests that you think the problem with the legal system is that it costs too much. If so, why do you ignore cost of private lawyers? They are the single largest cost of the legal system. Juries are cheap compared to the lawyers.

Cheap?

Have you considered the cost of the jury members' time? Have you ever done jury duty?

Juries made sense in a different era and country. There is good reason to think that they make no sense now. We now have sophisticated court and appeal procedures. If an injustice occurs, it can usually be corrected. I don't think juries render better justice than the current judicial system.

Fortunately in Canada, trial by jury is now severely restricted and can only be used in special cases. This thread would make more sense as a criticsm of our neighbours to the south.

[FTA Lawyer]

First off, the vast majority of criminal cases are tried before a judge sitting without a jury. Even fewer civil cases involve juries.

Second, I have never heard any defence lawyer I know say that they have elected a jury becuase they can trick them better with smoke and mirrors. If you have a sympathetic client and sympathetic facts you may favour a jury...if you have a complex technical legal defence, you typically avoid a jury.

Third, the jury is the best way for our system to be kept grounded...regular people using common sense to apply the law to a set of facts. Every verdict handed down by a jury as opposed to a judge injects a little bit of public confidence in the system.

I cannot see any good argument whatsoever to do away with juries.

FTA

[jdobbin]

First off, the vast majority of criminal cases are tried before a judge sitting without a jury. Even fewer civil cases involve juries.

Second, I have never heard any defence lawyer I know say that they have elected a jury becuase they can trick them better with smoke and mirrors. If you have a sympathetic client and sympathetic facts you may favour a jury...if you have a complex technical legal defence, you typically avoid a jury.

Third, the jury is the best way for our system to be kept grounded...regular people using common sense to apply the law to a set of facts. Every verdict handed down by a jury as opposed to a judge injects a little bit of public confidence in the system.

I cannot see any good argument whatsoever to do away with juries.

I think you're right. I never heard it was a problem in Canada before.

Given the right wing's obsession with judicial laxity, you would think they would favour a jury to represent the community's will on the subject of guilt or innocence.

I think the system should be left in place.

[capricorn]

If I was ever accused of a crime, I would rather my fate be decided by 12 of my peers than a politically appointed judge.

I was once called for jury duty. Some 150 potential jury members were called. Jury selection was held for five different cases and took two days to complete. Four of the five cases involved sexual assault. All the accused were visible minorities. I guess I must have shown my disgust when I was asked to face the accused because, to my relief, I was rejected. That experience left me with some prejudices. Pity.

[FTA Lawyer]

First off, the vast majority of criminal cases are tried before a judge sitting without a jury. Even fewer civil cases involve juries.

Second, I have never heard any defence lawyer I know say that they have elected a jury becuase they can trick them better with smoke and mirrors. If you have a sympathetic client and sympathetic facts you may favour a jury...if you have a complex technical legal defence, you typically avoid a jury.

Third, the jury is the best way for our system to be kept grounded...regular people using common sense to apply the law to a set of facts. Every verdict handed down by a jury as opposed to a judge injects a little bit of public confidence in the system.

I cannot see any good argument whatsoever to do away with juries.

I think you're right. I never heard it was a problem in Canada before.

Given the right wing's obsession with judicial laxity, you would think they would favour a jury to represent the community's will on the subject of guilt or innocence.

I think the system should be left in place.

I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that there is a right-wing vs. left wing bias regarding juries. After all, the most recent trip to the SCC for Grant Krieger was as a result of blatant jury nullification in the face of him admitting he had trafficked marijuana.

R. v. Krieger - SCC

I rather suspect that the right wing was not too happy with this jury, nor with the SCC judges.

FTA

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that there is a right-wing vs. left wing bias regarding juries. After all, the most recent trip to the SCC for Grant Krieger was as a result of blatant jury nullification in the face of him admitting he had trafficked marijuana.

R. v. Krieger - SCC

I rather suspect that the right wing was not too happy with this jury, nor with the SCC judges.

FTA

Good point. Still, the system does seem to work for the most part and when it doesn't, it is open to appeals and higher courts. Even then it can still go wrong but it is better than the alternative.

[Peter F]

I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that there is a right-wing vs. left wing bias regarding juries. After all, the most recent trip to the SCC for Grant Krieger was as a result of blatant jury nullification in the face of him admitting he had trafficked marijuana.

R. v. Krieger - SCC

I rather suspect that the right wing was not too happy with this jury, nor with the SCC judges.

FTA

From the SCC link provided:

In the case of Juror No. 12, the direction was express. When she started to explain why her conscience prevented her from judging the appellant, she stated . . .

A Here in the — in our — in our group, we — there are only two choices to — yes or no, or to be guilty or not guilty. So . . .

Q Actually there is one choice and that is guilt.

A Guilty, yeah. So to me it’s difficult to say that he’s guilty.

. . .

As for Juror No. 8 who said he wished to be excused on religious grounds, his answers to the questions posed demonstrate that he too was under no illusions as to the instructions the trial judge gave — the jury was to convict regardless. This juror was asked to explain why his conscience prevented him from making a decision. His answer at AB 223 demonstrates why this Court ought not to conclude that despite the error of law here, there is no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different nor for that matter that the result of a new trial would clearly be a conviction:

When I look at this case and all the facts presented, I think I understand the legal parameters in which I must remain. I feel this man is not a guilty man, and I can’t say guilty, even though I understand your charge, and I’m struggling with this, and I can’t bring myself to say guilty.

Juror No. 8 concluded his testimony before the trial judge stating at AB 224:

I believe that I could not live with myself if I was part of a conviction of this man.

I love juries. I love the S.C.C.

I hope we never get rid of them.

[Slavik44]

Can you give one clear-cut description of what is precisely wrong with it?

$100 million to try Picton.

Of course that also includes the costs to investigate little Willie and the missing women's task force....I don't think we can blame the excavation of a massive pig farm on juries...or to the disappointment of many, on Lawyers either.

A significant % of our population behind bars.

Would you care to name the percentage of the Canadian population currently behind bars in Canada?

Not that I am totally un-sympathetic to looking at who we are placing in Jail and alternatives to such things...but I feel the word significant is a gross misrepresentation.

Too many lawyers.

In your in depth study can you tell me how many lawyers is too many and why you have come to that conclusion? Could you also tell me how many Lawyers is the ideal amount and why you have come to that conclusion?

Heres what I really dont understand. How does the law of supply and demand not apply to lawyers?

uhmm...it does. Too many lawyers and too few jobs means lower salaries and higher un-employment and vica versa. Look, around at all the different legal markets in Canada and all the different areas of practice and you will see different salaries, hours, and numbers of people....supply and demand along with many other economic factors do apply to lawyers. If you cared to look a little closer you would be able to see this.

How come we have more lawyers in Toronto than there are in either Japan or Korea yet our system moves slower and costs more?

A few problems with this...you are looking at exceptional cases to prove a point...I think you need to remember that the exception is not the rule. Likewise you need to recognize that there is a cultural difference between Canada and Japan, and to assume that a culture difference wouldn't manifest itself in something as important as legal practices is asinine.

To expand on that, in Canada lawyers play many roles, you pointed to Toronto. Great, its a good example of this. In Canada Lawyers work in Business, Tax, mediation, etc.... no matter what, people have to fill these roles...in Canada many of these people happen to have gone to law school and have passed the bar...we call them lawyers....just because another country is less likely to call them lawyers...doesn't mean that the roles don't have to be filled...a lawyer by any other name....

Clearly we should cap the number of lawyers and reform our system to be more like (not totally) Japan's.

I would have to suggest that you have a problem here...after reading your post...I can't help but notice there is a general lack of support for such a conclusion.

As well for someone who is wanting to change the legal system for financial purposes I think you might have bitten off more then you can pay for. Given, that what you call for is nothing short of a cultural revolution. A constitutional and systematic make over of the entire country and legal code.

Likewise, I feel I should point out that Japan is trying to make changes... they don't want their system in its entirety. Honestly, it makes no sense...you are telling Canadians we need to copy the Japanese system...a system the Japanese don't fully want and are moving away from in order to copy ours.

-------------------------

In general I am somewhat worried by your posts....you want to cut out juries...because they cost to much money. The first thing we need to realize is that Juries are not as common as you are making them out to be...as in the majority of cases a jury is noticeably absent...they really are not that common.

I am even further worried by the fact that your big issues are time and money...I don't think cutting corners in the pursuit of justice is a good idea...McDonalds and Whores can hang on to the cheap and easy title...I would prefer that we focus on Justice...Rather then ill-advised cost and time cutting measures....combined together with the elimination of due process...such things go beyond counter productive to a point of absurdity.

Your lack of deliberation on this topic can be particularly noted by the fact that you disparage both the number of lawyers in the system and the fees they charge. You might want to look at the Law of supply and demand again...if you dramatically reduce the number of lawyers in the system...and the workload/demand remains the same...the last thing you are going to see is reduced fees...you would be giving lawyers even further permission to charge whatever they want. If you combine this with the full elimination for the option of trial by jury you would truly be making the legal system an elitist institution. In which the rich get freedom regardless of guilt and poor get Jail regardless of innocence. By limiting the number of lawyers...The ones remaining almost certainly would go after the money...pricing lawyers even further out of the reach of your average Joe and jane...making justice nothing less then a joke and a commodity that could not be afforded by the lower and middle class.

[jbg]

I dont really see the point in them. They are not legal experts (like judges). The process of getting them is expensive and time consuming. And lawyers can sway them with pretty arguements. The only people who probably want juries are the laywers and the guilty.

Our legal system needs dramatic reform. And I feel that getting rid of juries is one of the first steps.

They represent the common sense of the community. They apply the wisdom of everyday people about what is and is not likely to happen. Judges, who spend their days in courtrooms and/or their "chambers" lose touch with the real world to some extent.

Juries' function is to restore that connection to the judging process.

[jbg]

$100 million to try Picton. A significant % of our population behind bars. Too many lawyers.

The costs of the Picton trial have little to do with the involvement of juries. Forensic evidence, such as DNA, would still be needed even without juries. That, and assembling witnesses, are where the big dollars come in. Even with a judge trial, the lawyers, DNA evidence and witnesses would still be needed.

The real excessive costs in the legal system (at least here in the States) are in pretrial proceedings, such as discovery and preparation of pretrial briefs and orders. All of this was done in order to "streamlline" the trial once it got to the jury. The real result is that pretrial proceedings now exist for their own sake, and the costs far exceed what an "unstreamlined" trial would cost. That is where lawyers (myself included) really have a feast.

[jbg]

Juries made sense in a different era and country. There is good reason to think that they make no sense now. We now have sophisticated court and appeal procedures. If an injustice occurs, it can usually be corrected. I don't think juries render better justice than the current judicial system.

Juries still make sense since judges spend much of their time in the cloistered setting of the courtroom, chambers and robing room. A jury is far better at gauging when a witness is telling the truth, fumfering or out and out lieing.

[jbg]

I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that there is a right-wing vs. left wing bias regarding juries. After all, the most recent trip to the SCC for Grant Krieger was as a result of blatant jury nullification in the face of him admitting he had trafficked marijuana.

R. v. Krieger - SCC

I rather suspect that the right wing was not too happy with this jury, nor with the SCC judges.

FTA

In our country, a judge cannot instruct a jury to convict; only to acquit. Further, except in a few narrow cases such as witness tampering, the People cannot appeal a verdict of "not guilty".

[nbguyca]

Or maybe I just favour a scaled back contential system over the current commonwealth one.

All I am saying is that juries dont help justice, they help lawyers and defendents.

Smoke and mirror works a lot better on 12 lay people than on a judge.

Are you saying juries only find people innocent?

[scribblet]

Wouldn't you say this indicates a complete lack of respect for the justice system, but it also lends credence to the case to get rid of juries.

Actually I don't think we should get rid of them, but we should get rid of the ability of lawyers to manipulate the jury pool. The system has been corrupted; they hire consultants to pick potential jurists or disqualify them. Maybe we should do away with peremptory challenge which allows lawyers to manipulate demographics and carve out an unrepresentative panel out of a representative pool. Juries should represent the people, not the parties.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070709/od_af...am_070709174705

Mon Jul 9, 1:47 PM ET

LONDON (AFP) - A female Muslim juror has been arrested in Britain after allegedly listening to an MP3 player under her hijab headscarf during a murder trial, police said Monday.

The woman in her early 20s was spotted by a fellow juror listening to music as she was meant to be helping try the case of a pensioner accused of bludgeoning his wife to death after 50 years of marriage.

She could now be charged with contempt of court and, if convicted, may be punished with an indefinite jail sentence and an unlimited fine.

Details emerged after the defendant was convicted and Judge Roger Chapple lifted a reporting restriction which prevented previous publication of the details for fear of disrupting proceedings.