And soon, only 11 angry men... (2 Viewers)

[ManlyChief]

yes, they're hung like yesterday's dirty laundry. the trial is retried with a fresh batch of jurors.

Well, we could stop hung juries if we ensured that the maximum penis length of members was only 3 inches ... such juries could never be called hung, could they?

Oh, joy, pubescent sexual innuendo humour! How mature!

 

[Frigid]

I like how you obvoiusly like to imply I'm an uneducated bigot simply because my opinion is different to yours.

i'm implying you're an uneducated bigot coz you can't spell "altirior".

I do not see how this is changing a fundamental rule of proceedural fairness...

I find if 11 people can hear all the evidence, and find the person guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, this prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty to me.

do you even know what BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT means? it means no doubt - zip - zero - nothing. all twelve have to agree. no shred of doubt among those twelve angry men. if one of those twelve disagrees, then there is doubt. the jury is the only body that can judge guilt - NOT YOU. I don't care if you feel that eleven out of twelve is good enough because it isn't.

Sure you can claim that there is "some" doubt as one person did not vote the same way, but I class this doubt as unreasonable.

read what i wrote last paragraph.

It is unreasonable to believe one person in the face of 11 other rational people.

bullfuck. one you're assuming the other eleven are rational and two you haven't read the statistics.

coming back to your main point, you're an uneducated (or what we call unlearned) bigot because you neither appreciate nor do you understand the checks and balances in our legal system.

in summa, when the individual's life and liberty is at stake, for the State to say near enough is not good enough.

 

[Rorix]

do you even know what BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT means? it means no doubt - zip - zero - nothing.

No. It does not.

I'm not saying either way on the 12 vs 11-1 but that is simply not true.

 

[Frigid]

No. It does not.

I'm not saying either way on the 12 vs 11-1 but that is simply not true.

i'll qualify my statement. doubt in the jurors, even a shred of reasonable doubt, should lead to an acquittal.

 

[ManlyChief]

No. It does not.

I'm not saying either way on the 12 vs 11-1 but that is simply not true.

"If there is any doubt is your mind whatsoever as to any element of the crime as presented by the prosecution, you must acquit."

So criminal trials have been summed up for centuries.

 

[Frigid]

thank you, my learned friend.

may i cite Woolington per Viscount Sankey:

"Juries are always told that, if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must "satisfy" the jury...

If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal."

god, why are even talking about crim after my crim exam!?!

 

[erawamai]

thank you, my learned friend.

may i cite Woolington per Viscount Sankey:

"Juries are always told that, if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must "satisfy" the jury...

If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal."

god, why are even talking about crim after my crim exam!?!

I believe Crim is over forever Frigid. Start property. NOW! Before it is too late. Get a head start.

 

[rhapsody11]

...because justice isn't about majority its about uninimity.

That's an interesting statement.

Especially when there is a presumption of innocence and especially when the person is most likely to be on trial for his or her life. You send people to gaol when you know they did it not that it is probably did it.

Since when did number of jurors equate probability? :S

As we all know lawyers can make pretty good circumstantial cases these days and its not that hard to twang the emotions of the jury.

But it's still a huge majority, with the difference between current and proposed law being only one person.

Not only that, we could apply your logic onto people being not convicted when it's deserved, when there is a tonne of evidence against them, with one rogue supporter loving them for the wrong reasons.

I'm really happy that Australia doesn't have the court room theatrics of the US. It's pretty disgusting.

Me too. But this isn't about turning our legal system into theirs.

 

[Frigid]

I also like how you fail to address certain points of my posts, likely because you have no comebacks to them.

I claim that because you are asian you suck at common sense and therefore are wrong in this debate.

et tu, nice comeback too mate.

Nevertheless, I'll indulge in debating the one point you raised...

why so kind of you to indulge me

At what point IS near enough good enough?

1/24 votes against it? 1 in 36? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in a million? 1 in a billion?

nice numbers. NEAR ENOUGH ISssSsss.... 1 in THreE HundReD BilLLiOn GaLlizIon InFinIty + pi!

let me tell you what is good enough: get twelve random jurors. they agree. good enough.

any less, not good enough.

is that so hard for you to understand?

At what point do you discard the opinion of one person?

never. the minority who doubts should never be silenced by a majority.

I again refer you to my previous point, in should we set free every man who has ever had a hung jury?

i refer you to my previous answer: WHEN THERE IS A HUNG JURY, THE ACCUSED IS NOT ACQUITTED. THE JURY IS DISCHARGED AND A NEW TRIAL IS ORDERED. I REPEAT, THEY ARE NOT SET FREE!!! STOP LETTING POP MEDIA SENSATIONALISM, POLITICAL KNEE-JERK AND HOLLYWOOD LAW-AND-ORDER CORRUPT YOUR VIEWS!!!

Clearly this means one person, upon hearing all the evidence has not found him guilty [enough], and thus even in the retrial if all 12 find him guilty, how can this be good enough? 1/24 people have still found him not guilty.

it is not a matter of probability, not a matter of numbers, not a matter of democracy, not a matter of your judgment, but a matter of principle.

if indeed, someone is guilty, and the prosecution can show that, abiding all the features of due process, then it is up to the jury to find the accused guilty. if the prosecution fails to do so, then the guilt of the accused obviously does not meet the legal standard.

you seem to presume that there is always a lone ranger, always an irrational person - but jurors are not like that. even if there are isolated cases, the check and balance of a unanimous jury is necessary to protect the wrongfully accused.

scream out all the probability you want shuter, but our system is one which is holds protection of individual liberty, which is willing to save a single wrongfully accused at the cost of retrials. it is not a numbers game.

edit: i think i have laboured my views. i have nothing further to say on the topic.

 

[Frigid]

So lets say there was a jury of 1 billion people, and 999 999 999 people found this person guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but one person wasn't totally convinced?

I would like to live in the magical world you live in, but unfortunately I live in reality. Everything is a numbers game and everything is a balance.

actually Mr Shuter, it is my world that exists, we have unanimous juries in Australia, and your numbers game doesn't work.

of course, my powers of exaggeration are not as great as yours. i'm sorry, i concede. you're right. i hope in the future you get convicted of an offence by a 51-49 jury.

 

[charlie_charlie]

Amazing, why is 12 a magical number that somehow makes it right? What if I had 4 random jurors that agreed? What if I had 9 random one's that agreed? or what if I had 11 random ones that agree?

It's not issue of whether '12' is the magical number which somehow serves to ensure that justice is served (even though it did originlly have religious meaning in the 1200s), but I quote Stephens from History of Criminal Law that twelve 'ordinary' persons are "a group just large enough to destroy even the appaearance of individual responsibility." So collectively, that group, being subject to the same evidence, and with different levels of education and (presumably) understanding of the law, will have come to the same conclusion of whether the convicted is or is not guilty. Thus, that is proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

And as David Brown says in the article:

Research in Australia and New Zealand suggests the "rogue juror" issue is overplayed. Many hung juries were split more evenly than 11 to 1, and the majority was as likely to favour acquittal as conviction. In New Zealand, research found a small number of "minority" jurors among its sampling but the researchers concluded "the minority jurors provided a clearly articulated and reasoned basis for their dissent" - which in two of three cases "actually appeared well-founded", preventing what, in one case, would have been a "perverse verdict if majority verdicts were allowed".

Assuming that Professor Brown has cited a reputable source, this shows that often, where there is one juror dissenting from the others - has reasonable doubt.

And surely, where there is one juror who dissents from the others; well, wouldn't it be easier for he/she to agree with the rest of them if he or she was merely apathetic and ignorant about the law? Surely if they weren't that sure, they would just agree with the rest of the jurors and go home?

Hmmm, why am I just adding fuel to fire here? I should really be posting this up on UTSonline...

 

[Frigid]

And your unanimous juries are about to dissapear here, so does that mean we're moving into my world?

sorry dear, my world, at least on a federal level, will never disappear.

Hmmm, why am I just adding fuel to fire here? I should really be posting this up on UTSonline...

actually charlie, this helps your study of Cheatle

 

[charlie_charlie]

actually charlie, this helps your study of Cheatle

Too late, there's already a thread on UTS online ON cheatle. oh gawd, these intelligent sounding law people are intimidating...

 

[Frigid]

oh gawd, these intelligent sounding law people are intimidating...

haha, in expression, don't use plain english. legalese it as much as possible. commons, colons, multi-clausal sentences are the norm. if you can write one-sentence paragraphs, people will be in awe of your writing.

 

[charlie_charlie]

haha, in expression, don't use plain english. legalese it as much as possible. commons, colons, multi-clausal sentences are the norm. if you can write one-sentence paragraphs, people will be in awe of your writing.

That's just going against everything (including the beautiful paper-stapled-bits-together-to-make-a-book UTS Learning Guide) says!!!!

OR, under Frigid's guide to sound intelligent:

Indeed, that is a valid point, however, and I do point to the Resource that the UTS:Law Faculty provided during our orientation, that it is in conflict with the teachings and doctrines that are provided- even though, admittedly, this 'evidence' and its reliance is in dispute due its unfortunate default of resembling a large - albeit - well-bound- brochure, thus, creating much confusion upon my somewhat intellectually challenged brain.

 

[Soma]

Too late, there's already a thread on UTS online ON cheatle. oh gawd, these intelligent sounding law people are intimidating...

Haha. I've been quite active in that discussion.

 

[erawamai]

haha, in expression, don't use plain english. legalese it as much as possible. commons, colons, multi-clausal sentences are the norm. if you can write one-sentence paragraphs, people will be in awe of your writing.

Really? It's more like markers get jack of overly pretentious writing. Concise as possible Frigid. Law is no place for flowery frolics.

 

[ManlyChief]

Amazing, why is 12 a magical number that somehow makes it right? What if I had 4 random jurors that agreed? What if I had 9 random one's that agreed? or what if I had 11 random ones that agree?

So lets say there was a jury of 1 billion people, and 999 999 999 people found this person guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but one person wasn't totally convinced? Out of principle then, we should NEVER discard one person's opinions, so it should be a mistrial.

I'm well aware they're not set free, and I didn't state that. I asked you, SHOULD they be set free? Linking in with your matter of principle, how can you ever convict a man, if in 2 similarly run trials (the original and the retrial), one person was still not convinced of his guilt? By your principles it would be wrong to ever discard this persons opinion, so therefore the man should never be convicted, as there is always that tiny element of doubt. But we do convict them and send them to jail.

I would like to live in the magical world you live in, but unfortunately I live in reality. Everything is a numbers game and everything is a balance.

What I would be interested in is the number of juries which are hung at 11-1, of which the accused is subsuquently found guilty at the retrial.

Whether you are addressing Frigid's points properly is quite clearly not an issue for you, so I'm not going to make it an issue for me ...

But I would like to say, your opinion is an interesting and a widely held one. I would like to see if your sentiments change when you/your child/your sibiling is facing a charge of murder and find yourself in the only jurisidction in this country that allows 11-1 verdicts for murder and faced with a predominantly circumstantial case. I would like to see you then say that the creation of reasonable doubt in one person's mind is not enough ...

The problem is that lay people (I don't include you in that category) concieve of the criminal justice system in terms of the bing clear cut cases - Ivan Milat, Martin Bryant and their coevals - but the criminal law is not about those clear cut cases and the principles that underpin it should not be formulated using them as touchstones.

Play nice kiddies,

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Personally I would like to know where the number 12 came from.

There doesn't appear to be any direct reason or logic behind that particular number of jurors.

 

[Rorix]

"If there is any doubt is your mind whatsoever as to any element of the crime as presented by the prosecution, you must acquit."

So criminal trials have been summed up for centuries.

Surely, my friend, there is a distinction between doubt and reasonable doubt. In any case there is SOME doubt, provided there is conflict on the evidence.

Frigid: The question of how many people it would take to no longer require a unanimous verdict is relevant. Surely you'd concede that if the jury was 1 billion people, a 999999999-1 verdict would suffice. Juries are not perfect, of course - some aren't even reasonable - and in 1 billion people you are sure to find someone who is prejudiced enough or illogical enough to come to a certain conclusion which is in contradiction to everyone else.

The principle is then not unanimousity (if that's a word) but at what number of jurors and what number of dissenters there is sufficient satisfaction of whether or not the crime had been committed to punish the defendant. Surely if there were 2 jurors, and their decision had to be unanimous, this would be less preferable than a larger jury allowing x-1 verdicts.

Thus, it is not a question of no majority verdicts at all, but rather at what point is x-1 sufficient and at what point is x-0 required.