The British Jury System
A conspiracy to convict?
This consists of twelve people but if they cannot agree, the verdict of any ten will do. A change made in the 1960's, supposedly to stop gangsters from nobbling a juror and effecting the outcome of a trial. In reality it was so that more people would be convicted, otherwise they would have increased the jury to 14 and kept the decision to that of twelve. The judge only has to let the jury deliberate for just 2 hours before he can give this instruction and make the view of two jurors redundant. If during a trial 2 people are taken ill the trial will still continue, a majority of the remaining 10 can then be taken as sufficient. It was also in the 1960’s that hanging the innocent (along with the guilty) was abolished so easier convictions would have placated those that got a kick out of judicial killing.
Jurors operate by a process of duress, the thoughtful, questioning ones pressurised
to accept the certainties of others unable to comprehend their qualms. Until they
can produce a unanimous or near-unanimous verdict, the law forces them away from
family, friends, home and business for days or weeks on end. Under any other circumstances
a decision made under duress would be legally invalid, and the judicial system fails
when facts are not clear-cut. The jury's decision is often just guesswork. Under
pressure most jurors will side with authority.
Think of how you would feel as the numbers stack up against you, all those eyes looking at you and saying “come on, lets get this over with.” think of the pressure to agree.
Jurors should be made individually accountable, collective decisions give false verdicts. Each juror, after solitary deliberation should record his/her individual opinion concerning guilt using a questionnaire/report form provided. The form should require the juror to identify why a witness had been called and what they have said that favoured the Prosecution and then the Defence. Exhibits and other important facts should also be identified and their relevance stated. These forms should then be made public without identifying the juror. The present system dates back to times when people were mainly illiterate, virtually everyone can read and write these days and are capable of expressing their own view. We should all be able to see that they were capable of doing the job and without bias.
To incarcerate someone who is innocent is such a heinous crime the least we should do is give them the benefit of a fair jury system. There is also a belief that jurors do not always understand the evidence in medical or complex financial cases. Should jurors be picked from the relative profession in these trials?
Personal comment by Tom Watkins
Some time ago I joined a coach trip to the theatre.
Next to me was a man I at first thought was interesting. Now retired, he had been
a manager in a large US business subsidiary in England. He told me about his trips
to the US and countries in Europe. Then we got to discussing a court case on which
I had gathered a lot of evidence. He told me what he thought about it, I countered
with true facts. Slowly he became more and more aggressive.
He knew nothing, but was certain the accused was guilty. Eventually I had to shut up, I was causing his wife, who was sitting next to him, too much distress and others were joining in supporting his views. It is not hard to find people like this, they are on most juries.
It is imperative that jurors make up their own mind and tell us why they came to their decision. A large proportion of people think the defendant guilty as soon as they are charged (or even accused). For there to be a fair trial a clear majority of the jury would have to come from those that start with an open mind. The make-up of the jury is a complete lottery. The present system also makes it too easy for us all to square our conscience with the thought, 'well I just agreed with the others'.
Some time back I remember seeing a Channel 4 programme, 'Trial and Error'. The subject was the trial and conviction of Sheila Bowler, a music teacher in her 60's. Just a few months after the death of her husband she had been charged and convicted of the murder of an elderly aunt, whom she was supposed to have pushed into a river. There was no real evidence she had done it. (Bob, her husband had been a church warden, sheila collected money for the NSPCC and they both sold poppies each year to support The British Legion, no-one could have been a more solid citizen).
A researcher for the program talked with a juror who said that before the jury retired, the judge had said that if they did not reach a verdict by the end of that Friday afternoon, they would all have to go to a hotel for the weekend. You can just imagine the pressure, no-one wanted this. They reached a decision that afternoon, the wrong one. During their deliberations it was also said "she looks as if she could have done it." This reminded me of 'The diary of a Parson', by James Woodforde. James died in 1803 but in 1775 he had recorded in his diary after seeing a public hanging a remark about the executed man. "I never saw such sullenness and villainy on one face." I wonder how many people are convicted because someone doesn't like the look of them? What a way to make a decision! Prejudice is rife; skin colour, racial origin, creed, social class, accent, disability, and inappropriate speech can all make a difference. The list is endless.
After several years in prison and two appeal hearings, there was a retrial. Sheila was found not guilty in February 1998. According to Channel 4's Trial and Error programme, Sheila said her four years in prison had changed her. "It has made me more tolerant. There are so many people in prison who shouldn't be there."
It is of no surprise to find that trials are still billed as Regina v The Accused the prosecution is referred to as The Crown, and the judge, well he is My Lord. This whole business still has a lot to do with previous centuries, a master servant relationship and keeping peasants under control. It should be about truth, honesty and fairness and establishing this without reasonable doubt. In reality the accused is guilty unless they can prove their innocence.
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org