Do We Need Juries?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- This lecture looks at the development of juries in the common law world, addressing key questions about the role of juries in England and Wales today.
Juries in modern English law are mainly used in criminal trials, civil trials, and coroners’ inquests, and the English jury system differs from other common law jurisdictions, some of which use juries more, less, or not at all. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the jury system, and do jury trials or bench trials deliver fairer outcomes?
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/...
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Yes we do.
We've had systems with and without juries over time. Juries are there to humanize the law and to prevent the abuse of a sovereign or administration abuse (i.e. judge). This allows for your peers to determine if a said law should or should NOT be applied in a particular case due to whatever extenuating circumstances that may apply. This can also allow people to indicate that a particular law being offensive to the populace. This is called Jury Nullification where they may be a law but the jury refuses to apply that law to a particular case or in general. Since laws are not created by the people directly (but by lawmakers) this is how the population closes that loop to give direct feedback as to a 'bad law'. This is the REASON why we have a jury.
Great explanation.
Correct. See William Penn trial of 1670 and the setting in law that jurors can reach a verdict according to their conscience.
I'll watch this but before I do, I'm going to say I can't imagine any argument that might persuade me that juries should be abandoned or replaced, even with their flaws. There needs to be a check upon the power of prosecutors and judges and at their best, juries provide that.
Obviously, the solution to this is to select a group of people with zero legal qualifications or understanding of the manipulation tactics that lawyers regularly use in a country where the average person can't point to their own home country on a world map. That'll stop them for sure.
Nullification of the law is ultimate safeguard of freedom, therefore juries should remain.
Freedom for who? Freedom for criminals.
@@tcm81 Freedom from inhuman laws
@@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335 so a jury decides that the laws imposed by a democratically elected government are wrong. A handful of men in a room decide to subvert the democratic wish of the whole country?
@@tcm81 you simplify way to much mate. Still, believe what you wish. Ciao
What a question to pose? To even posit it denotes a high degree of civil/ criminal misunderstanding. It’s been a respectable bastion of humanity in common law
And yet it seems to work just fine whithout them in many countries.
@@knieperkohl just fine for whom? And who are the countries you allude to?
@@bobd4563 I think most european countries actually. I know it's not a thing in Sweden or Germany.
@@knieperkohl every country has been molded in its past with its own internal civil rights and possible constitution struggles, irrespective of EU current membership which aims to dissolve national laws. We in England being formed since 927 AD have rich history of freedom and free speech brought about by the people who forced king’s to officially protect the public from summary jail and execution at the whim of political tyranny
If you watched it then you’d know why the poses the question.
I prefer the idea of the Dutch system with judges. I’ve done jury service twice and I think it helps the guilty.
I don't. Judges are always from a very narrow strata of society.
Judges can't nullify the law if they think a particular law is unjust on a case by case basis. When the law puts someone in the dock, the law itself is also in the on trial. As a result of the William Penn trial in 1670 established in law that jurors can reach a verdict based on their conscience.
We barely have jury trials, most are by judges. And way to many judges are essentially politicians/activists.
True.
Always remember kids, if you’re guilty, get a jury, if you’re innocent, you better not get a jury
Juries are as close and the "legal" system comes to being held to any actual account to the general public.
No, those are judges
@@logiclust *laughs in mandatory minimums*
Like those bicyclist on the side of country roads with no room for MY error?! They trust me to thread the needle everytime I drive by? They trust strangers.more than I.
Jury
WE NEED COMMON LAW JURIES
THEN GO AFTER THE JUDGES, ATTORNEYS AND COPS
THEY ALL WORK FOR BRITIAN
AND BLACKROCK
50 years too late to address this major shortcoming in the judicial system because it is almost impossible for "peers" to give an impartial and knowledgeable decision.. the original premise was instigated centuries ago, time to progress
Your contempt for your fellow citizens is sad and obvious.
@@Praisethesunson Being from a country where we don't have juries, I'd prefer a judge, someone trained in law, who understands what they're doing decide my fate. It's not a matter of contempt, as much as, I trust an expert over random people on the street who may have never read a book about law. It's for the same reason I wouldn't let an engineer perform surgery on me. It's not that I despise engineers, but surgery simply isn't their area of expertise.
@@octavianpopescu4776
Judges are more likely to convict than a Jury.
Progress towards what? Failure? Corruption? Just because some things new and is a change doesn’t mean it’s progress or better.