I wrote a blog entry recently
(here) in which I criticised the David Hicks' upcoming trial fiasco. I commented that there was "ne'er a sign of twelve good men and true to offer some level of impartiality to the process."
Brother
Peter responded with criticism of the jury system. While he has his own view of it based upon his experiences I have a somewhat different view and I suppose it is timely to weight up the merits and demerits of our jury system.
In France (so I am led to believe) they have no jury. Cases are heard instead in front of a panel of magistrates. In China they have no jury either but that comes as no surprise to you I'm sure.
The jury system we have at its best, is as impartial as it can be from the influences and bias of the law, the judiciary and the government. Unfortunately It also means that complex cases and perhaps at times even some some not-so complex cases, can be steamrolled by the ignorance and bias of a minority of jurors. You can't always fit the complexities of a legal case into a two minute slot for the television news either, and if you really think that a miscarriage of justice has occurred when you read of, or hear of a jury decision, then sift through the court papers instead. Better still, sit in court and watch the proceedings.
Without a jury, there is a real risk that the legal system can be manipulated by government. It threatens our very freedom. God knows, we don't have a free press despite what we are told and to hand over all the processes of justice to the judiciary makes me very uneasy indeed. Government appointed judges with a particular slant has become an increasingly worrying issue. People talk with resigned acceptance about which side of the spectrum each of our High Court appointees represents and we surely know that such biased political appointeeism is a way of lfe. We are governed by a mostly benign fascist cartel of multinationals and other assorted arse-lickers.
On the other hand, what can a jury of ordinary people add to a complex commercial case? Not much. Granny Miggins, who surrendered all the bill paying to her husband from the day she got married 35 years ago, is likely unqualified to take in the issues and legalities of a complex financial fraud. A lot of people aren't, and yet we demand (under law) that they do .
I think I would be happy to accept a compromise. Why not allow certain cases to be heard by a jury of (at least some)experts in the field? Perhaps we could even allow a jury of my much cherished 'twelve good men and true' to decide if a case is heard by a panel?
Some changes certainly need to be made. I don't see why we can't question that tradition alone, is no reason to continue devalued time -honoured practices.
Peter may well not support such a concept as he leans so far to the right on this issue he would actually recommend the execution of anyone who has ever sat on a jury. Still, I think that there is a germ of a reasonable idea in this.
And on another note, it really is about time that 'Livejournal' included the word 'blog' and it's various derivatives in its spell-checker!