I have long been a proponent of juries, thinking that consideration by a group of peers over an extended period being the best method of deciding complex cases. I no longer am.
Firstly, the way laws have been made, administered and interpreted mean the laws themselves are often incredibly complicated and beyond proper understanding of non-lawyers. Secondly, juries do not give reasons for their decisions and I’m convinced that unanimous decisions are not always made.
But what has really focussed my thoughts are three high profile Australian cases, all before a judge only. Two have been decided and the judges reasonings have been clear, compelling and in my view just.
The first of the two completed trials was the Chris Dawson murder case:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-...wife/101726104
I listened to the judge’s 7 hour judgement and he simply covered every aspect of the case. A jury may have made the same decision, but without knowing the reasons, doubt would have lingered (there was no body).
The second was the Ben Robert’s-Smith defamation case.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65717684
Not only was this case lost, but the judge found that Robert’s-Smith was a murderer and war criminal. The judgement was also clear and convincing. I think a jury may have given Robert’s-Smith (a Victoria Cross recipient) the benefit of the doubt.
The final one is the ongoing Bruce Lehrmann defamation case. I don’t think he will win, but I’m satisfied the case is in the hands of a judge and not a Jury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_A...ct_allegations
I expect the judge will dismiss the case and find that Lehrmann raped Higgins.
Anyway, I personally hope that, at least in Australia, the day of the jury will soon be over.
Comments?
Firstly, the way laws have been made, administered and interpreted mean the laws themselves are often incredibly complicated and beyond proper understanding of non-lawyers. Secondly, juries do not give reasons for their decisions and I’m convinced that unanimous decisions are not always made.
But what has really focussed my thoughts are three high profile Australian cases, all before a judge only. Two have been decided and the judges reasonings have been clear, compelling and in my view just.
The first of the two completed trials was the Chris Dawson murder case:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-...wife/101726104
I listened to the judge’s 7 hour judgement and he simply covered every aspect of the case. A jury may have made the same decision, but without knowing the reasons, doubt would have lingered (there was no body).
The second was the Ben Robert’s-Smith defamation case.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65717684
Not only was this case lost, but the judge found that Robert’s-Smith was a murderer and war criminal. The judgement was also clear and convincing. I think a jury may have given Robert’s-Smith (a Victoria Cross recipient) the benefit of the doubt.
The final one is the ongoing Bruce Lehrmann defamation case. I don’t think he will win, but I’m satisfied the case is in the hands of a judge and not a Jury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_A...ct_allegations
I expect the judge will dismiss the case and find that Lehrmann raped Higgins.
Anyway, I personally hope that, at least in Australia, the day of the jury will soon be over.
Comments?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/QTZ7VUy
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire