This programme was a social experiment, comparing how different juries react to the same case. The case was based on a real one, re-enacted by actors.
The jurors knew they were in a social experiment. Yet they were fretting as if their decision would determine an actual person's future. Why would a social experiment be allowed on an actual live case?
The defendant admits to killing his wife, but claims he should be charged with manslaughter (not murder) due to his lack of control.
The jurors said the defendant was honest, a nice guy, he loved her. These were some of the reasons explaining why they thought it was manslaughter instead of murder. Yet none of these were reasons for loss of control and the jury knew it could only be manslaughter if there was a loss of control. Therefore as their conclusions didn't follow from their reasoning, their conclusions weren't valid.
One juror said no parent should be apart from their children for the length of a murder sentence. From day one, he said this was why he'd vote manslaughter. This had nothing to do with the case and yet the juror knowingly decided his verdict on this. That's straight out perverting the course of justice.
The jurors believed the defendant's negative, abusive account of the victim without questioning it!
Just because the victim isn't there to question the narrative doesn't mean the jury shouldn't question it. This guy murdered his wife, so maybe don't take his word for it? As with any defendant, their testimony is to get them off the hook so it's most likely biased.
Her mental health conditions were verified by professionals, sure, but that doesn't automatically make her abusive like the defendant claimed. Not only is that outright discrimination but the judge allowed it to stand in his court room.
Watching the juries reach a verdict was frustrating.
They kept on interupting each other. This is normal human behaviour but one would hope that people would be more civilised over something so important.
One observer was surprised that cliques ganged up on the others. Considering that's a basic behaviour in group settings, I don't understand how it could be a surprise.
Unanimous decisions for a verdict are such a bad idea. Even the 10/12 majority that the law allows for is an abnormal agreement rate (83.3%).
People gave in to the majority view out of peer pressure/ outright bullying) or just to get the process over with. This increases the chance of a miscarriage of justice.
Those decisions are not based on the case but are based on the jury. A verdict not based on the case is a faulty verdict.
There are two main justifications for the jury system.
1: involving ordinary citizens is meant to maintain trust and transparency. The thing is, I wouldn't trust an ordinary citizen to be my doctor, so why would we trust ordinary citizens to be our jurors?
2: judges prevent jurors from seeing faulty material. So, this is biased, irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. If the jurors can't see faulty material, they can't be improperly influenced by it and thus reach a faulty conclusion. But this reason for a jury is not the same as a reason for jurors being ordinary citizens.
All-in-all, this social experiment was an interesting insight into the UK jury system. Given the same evidence, the two juries reached different verdicts. It's also slightly scary to see all the flaws play out so clearly. Having professional jurors would eliminate, or at the very least reduce, these issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment