Jackson Jury's a Joke

Michael Jackson gets off. (Alleged) Gangland (Alleged) thug Mick Gatto gets off. Schapelle Corby gets 20 years. Completely unrelated cases in different jurisdictions, but all three undermine any lingering faith I had in the justice system.

I've long held the view that the jury system is a flawed system and should be abolished, and seeing the juries acquit Jackson and Gatto is a good demonstration of why. To get selected for a jury, you must demonstate that you have no preconcieved notions of the case, little knowledge of the people involved, no strong views, and last had an original thought some time during the Nixon administration. Then, after demonstrating that they are the poster-children of ordinariness, jurors are expected to critically evaluate vast quantities of technical and legal evidence, balance competing claims on the truth, and reach a reasoned and careful judgement. Why do we persist with such an absurd system.

If we trust judges to oversee the trial and apply the rules of law, then surely we should trust them to reach a verdict. By definition, judges are experts in the evaluation of evidence, logical reasoning and legal principles. To set aside this expertise, and instead rely on lay-opinion, is absurd.

Comments

Jeremy said…
I presume Gatto must be convicted of at least some pretty fucking serious weapons charges. You're not supposed to be wandering around with a pistol in your pocket in case someone tries to assassinate you.
16 June 2005 at 08:34
boy_fromOz said…
remember that juries are unique to the English common law world. they are absent not only from European civil law systems but also from non-western cultures, several of which (China and Islam for instance) had developed quite sophisticated judicial systems prior to western influence. I think it's a big call to assert one country's monopoly on the effective delivery of justice, but that's what the debate on juries often amounts to. it slips into an 18th century mould casting the jury as a birthright of freeborn Anglo-Saxons, compared with benighted continentals writhing under inquisitorial despotism (I'd suggest this is the mindset that coloured Austalian reactions to the Corby case). Leaving aside the historical problems with this approach, it's philosophically reductionist. justice is more complex than the 'no innocent person shall be convicted'
principle, it includes e.g. factors of time, cost and social policy.
empirically, common law systems (Australia included) don't deliver substantially better justice outcomes than non-CL ones, in fact they suffer from major systemic problems that non-CL countries don't, though these derive more from the adversarial system in general rather han juries per se.

personally I don't see why in principle a panel of judges should not be a legitimate fact-finding body. obviously you can't keep rotating judges between different areas of law to avoid 'hardening' them as they need to develop some expertise in what they're doing, but
you can put in certain safeguards to ensure you don't end up with 'Diplock' courts (I'd suggest the Northern Ireland situation is quite context-specific and shouldn't be used as a general model).
16 June 2005 at 12:13
Anonymous said…
It's worth remembering that Judges must give reasons, which can be scrutinised on appeal. Juries don't give any reasons, and the DPP cannot appeal from an acquittal - even if it seems (genuinely) perverse.

Many perfectly good criminal justice systems do not leave verdicts in the hands of juries, but it's what we're used to in Australia. Indonesian, Israeli, French, Swedish (etc) jurists are often alarmed by what they perceive as the arbitrariness and lack of accountability and effective review inherent within the UK/US/Australian jury system.

Cheers,

John.
16 June 2005 at 16:28
Ari Sharp said…
The Jackson/Gatto/Corby trials were merely a 'hook' I used to discuss the issues of juries at large. The argument I made - that juries are illequipped to deal with the complexities of evidence - is appropriate regardless of the celebrity status of the defendant.
16 June 2005 at 22:37
Anonymous said…
You could never convict gatto on that evidence...Veniamin loved .38s and he got killed by a .38. Clearly it was his gun. Gatto is a hardass oldschool g'star and "benji" was a brutal thug who had no common sense. This guy was erratic and pulled a gun on the wrong guy...Gatto was simply defending himself. Clear as day. Jacko on the otherhand is f'ing weirdo...but was never gonna be convicted when the victim was so inconsistant with his course of events.
18 June 2005 at 15:09
Anonymous said…
I'm not sure yet, but I think I'm with you on the whole no jury thing. The one problem: can it all come down to just one person? jeremy jose is right on with the problems involved with that one.
19 June 2005 at 22:02
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can conspicuous consumption save the news business?

Image
It’s a dire time for the news industry. Readers are flooding to social media for content, advertisers are moving with them and costs are being cut at a brutal rate in a desperate bid to meet falling revenue. It is increasingly clear that business models that depend on amassing large audiences in order to provide a forum for advertising will always struggle against the “niche of one” audience that social media platforms can provide for advertisers. There’s been lots of talk lately about ways to fund public interest journalism. One idea is to tax the online aggregators – Facebook and Google, primarily – that sell advertising against the news content of others to support news organisations. Another is to make news subscriptions or donations to its producers tax deductible.  Both ideas are worth considering, but they do not abrogate the need for news organisations to seek better ways to draw revenue from consumers.  (It is alarming that discussion of efforts to build a
Read more

Thanks for all the fish

After 13 years with Blogspot, I've shifted blogging platform. So (drumroll, please), you can find my new blog here . Ari on the Web will stay online, so you can scroll through the archives for all sorts of embarrassing tidbits. To make it easier to find some of my writing on particular themes, I've grouped some pieces together under a few labels: Cancer Fatherhood Indonesia travels North Korea travels United States travels Undergraduate days   So as they say here in my new home of Japan, so long, and thanks for the all the fish.
Read more

Much in a name

Image
Naming a child is one of the greatest responsibilities a parent has. Short of some dramatic action by its bearer, a person is stuck with a name for life and all the nominative determinist consequences that flow from it. While opening it up to the whims of the democratic process was one option ( Baby McBabyface? ) and engaging the services of a baby name consultant was another, Melanie and I opted to take on the responsibility ourselves. Our criteria? We wanted a name that suited a child as well as the adult she will become. We wanted a name that conveyed both warmth and gravitas. We wanted a name that carried some broader meaning, within our family and beyond it. We wanted a name that was easy to say and easy to spell. And we wanted a name that sounded good, in its entirety and when each part stood on its own. For us, it wasn’t just the given names that needed to be chosen. With Melanie and I each keeping our family names when we got married, our daughter’s family name also
Read more