5 ms·
Having recently sat on a Jury in the UK, deliberating on a triple assault case, the CCTV was the most crucial piece of evidence - eye witness reports were patch
by djaychela 10y ago
Having recently sat on a Jury in the UK, deliberating on a triple assault case, the CCTV was the most crucial piece of evidence - eye witness reports were patchy and in some cases contradictory, and watching the events on CCTV was important in deciding what actually happened.
If we had not had access to the CCTV - both in real time and slowed down (which was actually produced by the defence, not the prosecution), then I strongly believe the outcome would have been different; indeed if another angle had been present then one count may well have been judged differently.
It is easy to view something slowly and decide that intent was more severe than may have been planned by the people involved, but in my experience it's also invaluable in seeing what actually happened, as the camera can be the most reliable witness to the facts of the matter.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- afandian 10y agoMy view is that the aim of a using juries is to bring the things humans are good at* to the judgment process, i.e. deciding who's lying under cross-examination. Humans might be good at detecting 'intent' in the real world and calibrated for reality. Their calibration might be completely wrong for slow-motion. So maybe slow-mo does give a better view of what happened to establish the facts of the matter but may drastically skew other, more important factors. ___ * sadly it doesn't seem to be true
- anexprogrammer 10y agoIt's more about bringing independence to the judgement. It's a check against the system, or an overly powerful state. A judge may know the law more precisely than a layperson, but is no less fallible. But they are of the system. Juries work remarkably well on that basis. That's not to say they're likely to be better at deciding truth, guilt or innocence. They'll undoubtedly bring some of their prejudices in from the street. Juries have the ability to acquit a defendant despite the evidence and facts (jury nullification), which is very rarely if ever pointed out to juries. Only case I can think of was Clive Ponting, a UK civil servant, prosecuted for leaking Falklands war documents. He claimed to have done so in the public interest. The governement position was public interest is whatever we think it is. The judge directed them to convict. The jury acquitted. The govt was not happy. They later changed the Official Secrets Act such that this defence was no longer possible and since then public interest is now whatever the UK Govt says it is.
- cmdrfred 10y agoThis exists in the US as well but the judge will throw you into contempt if you mention it.
- orf 10y agoUS courtroom practices seem to be very very different from UK ones, despite the same origin.
- bitwize 10y agoFun fact: Judges in the UK do not use gavels. However, judges in UK police procedurals and legal dramas use gavels. Why? Because the judges in American police procedurals and legal dramas do, and it's become an expected trope.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoThere are a lot of examples of jury nullification in the US. - The famous Zenger trial was a jury nullification. It did influence the development of US law -- later, but it was overtly contrary to the very well-established law of the time. - Jury nullification was common for alcohol-related crimes in Prohibition. - It was also common for lynch mob participants.
- anexprogrammer 10y agoI googled a little after yours and the sibling comment. Seems it's been much more actively used in the US than the UK. Fascinating that US law refers all the way back to a 1670 English case[1], even though there's no legal binding. Were I not old enough to remember the Falklands case I doubt I'd ever have heard of it here in the UK. There was no reference to it in the information sent when I was called for jury duty, or any mention by the judges. The Falklands case, the documents it brought to light, and the implications were in the media regularly for weeks afterwards, possibly months, so it was impossible to miss. I can't remember a more recent case (though I'm sure there must have been). All Google turfs up for the UK recently is a couple of media articles expressing the belief it should be more widely known. http://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/jury-instructions-and-their-purpose/jury-nullification/ http://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/jury-instructions-and-...
- interfixus 10y agoOther, more important factors than what happened? Please elaborate.
- DanBC 10y agoIs it a just law that should be enforced?
- afandian 10y agoFactors like establishing intent. Which is a major part of a trial, after establishing the facts.
- jccc 10y agoThe subject of the article is how slow motion can greatly skew a jury's perception of intent, thus greatly skew the resulting sentence. That is one rather important factor.
- BurningFrog 10y ago> the aim of a using juries is to bring the things humans are good at As opposed to what non human alternatives?
- mcguire 10y agoDice? A coin flip?