Jury Service

[perplexity]

It is a shame that nobody here yet felt the need to declare with regard to the Philosophy of Law.

I have asked before, around here and elsewhere, if anybody has actully served on a jury, but not yet with a useful answer to be seen.

I wonder what effect it had upon the personal outlook because it had a big effect on mine, as it does for others, a best we may gather. Up until then I had thought myself to be reasonably sure of many a thing which I see now to be nothing more than a best guess, hopefully good enough to go by but a rough estimate which we nevertheless oblige ourselves to rely upon.

If Juries really did require themselves to know the whole truth and nothing but, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, would they ever convict anybody?

The practicality of the matter is also thus of interest, the extent to which a jury member is prepared to cope. Jury members are notoriously reluctant to give up their time to serve.

--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

The issue is that 'everyday' people dont think of the 'fundimental' applicatons of 'truth' or the reality of morality ect. So ignorance on their part makes the descisson far simpler,and its probably true that 'everyday' people would consider philosophical conscepts to actually be not true or even relivent anyway!

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

The issue is that 'everyday' people dont think of the 'fundimental' applicatons of 'truth' or the reality of morality ect. So ignorance on their part makes the descisson far simpler,and its probably true that 'everyday' people would consider philosophical conscepts to actually be not true or even relivent anyway!

But it was not like that at all, rather the opposite.

I was astounded by the reluctance to decide, to come to the conclusion that the supect was indeed criminally involved with something nefarious. In the event I was the only one of 12 with the courage to vote to convict, and the only one willing to serve as the foreman, therefore appointed by default.

-- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

Interesting, so would you say it was down to the possility that they didnt have a sence of social resposabity and were not commited to the service they were responsible for, many people regard 'offical' duties as either daunting or with (i cant think of the word) something like hate or contempt because the naturally feel its 'against' them also. I hope i havent confused you.

[Aristoddler]

I fail to see where there can be philosophy, in a place where fact is the sole neccessity.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

Interesting, so would you say it was down to the possility that they didnt have a sence of social resposabity and were not commited to the service they were responsible for,

Not that one should presume to be a mind reader, the feeling that I had of it was that the jury members were thinking about the crimes that they themsleves had committed and got away with.

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

I fail to see where there can be philosophy, in a place where fact is the sole neccessity.

That is easy to explain. It is because of the total lack of the necessary "fact". All a jury really has to go on is an impression of personal recollections of the facts. In the event any physical evidence is remarkably unhelpful. A pistol with a label on it is passed around the jury, from hand to hand and they're thinking "so what, how does this help?" The "evidence" is worth nothing without a person to vouch for it.

It is about guilt, which is a philosophical issue, not a demonstrable fact.

-- Ron.

[pilgrimshost]

So is your coco too hot? Whos guilt, or do you mean every mans guilt?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

mean every mans guilt?

The guilt of the accused in the dock, nothing more abstruse than that, because there is nothing more abstruse than his guilt, not as if he is going to plead not guilty and then give the game away, to make it easy for the jury.

-- RH.

[Isa]

Given so little information about the case and/or situation, it is difficult to try and explain either why the 11 didn't vote to convict, or even why you did (other than you expressed belief that the person was guilty). So it might simply be that they really didn't feel that the accused was guilty.

Another possible explanations why the 11 didn't vote to convict might be related to the severity of the crime; you mentioned that it was "nefarious", so I must imagine that it carried a rather stiff sentence if convicted. It may be that the 11 didn't feel "sure" enough about the evidence to convict and sentence someone to hard time. Or there might have been something about the person that wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, or to give them a second chance (maybe something like the defendant being very young).

It could also be that you saw some proof in the evidence that the others didn't, and you only assumed that they did.

Again, it is difficult to try and guess.

[astrotheological]

Originally Posted by perplexity

It is a shame that nobody here yet felt the need to declare with regard to the Philosophy of Law.

I have asked before, around here and elsewhere, if anybody has actully served on a jury, but not yet with a useful answer to be seen.

I wonder what effect it had upon the personal outlook because it had a big effect on mine, as it does for others, a best we may gather. Up until then I had thought myself to be reasonably sure of many a thing which I see now to be nothing more than a best guess, hopefully good enough to go by but a rough estimate which we nevertheless oblige ourselves to rely upon.

If Juries really did require themselves to know the whole truth and nothing but, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, would they ever convict anybody?

The practicality of the matter is also thus of interest, the extent to which a jury member is prepared to cope. Jury members are notoriously reluctant to give up their time to serve.

--- RH.

The government should pay people a lot more than what they paying right now. It might actually convince people to look at the evidence more thoroughly.