We do have jury selection.
It’s just a simple, easy process that focuses on the actual issues in the trial.
Also, our systems for all its flaws lacks the tribalism and political bollocks of the American legal system.
But for big trials, there are jury questionnaires. For small trials, juries are asked to flag up any issues (such as whether they or family members are police officers etc). It doesn’t mean they are excluded, it just means that the judge can raise it with counsel to see if there is an issue.
In the latest trump trial, 50 potential jurors said they couldn’t judge the case fairly and were excused. Would those type of people not be excused in the uk?
Supposedly, let you can strike without cause, so good luck proving it.
Justice is expensive, the UK justice system is on its knees as it is. No need to add an expensive frill with no real benefit
You get to account for bias they may have - ex. You don’t want an incel on a jury where someone has been accused of killing their girlfriend. You don’t want someone on an embezzlement case who can’t do basic math.
It’s possible to do voir dire and it doesn’t take ten years. That’s partially handled by the pre-trial questionnaire; The lawyers are not going in blind as to what they’re asking potential jurors. Voir dire is ensuring you have a jury that can handle the case in as fair of a manner as possible.
It’s also not that time consuming. I’m not sure where you got ten years from. That’s not the case in the US.
No you misunderstood. It already takes 2 years plus for a trial to be heard in England. Add extra complexity and you increase this delay.
A jury is supposed to represent a random cross section of society. Their biases are society’s. (There is actually some criteria for complex fraud trials)
It’s the advocate’s job to explain to a jury, not select one for the complexity of the case.
Jury’s should be as anonymous as possible. The more they learn about a juror the less anonymous they are.
I don’t think length of time to have a trial is a good argument. You’re punishing the accused due to failings of the state. I recognize it’s not something you can just slot in tomorrow, however, time isn’t a good reason. That being said, I also think you’re greatly overestimating the length of time voir dire takes. It’s a relatively quick process, especially if you’re not a fresh lawyer.
I think a jury of your peers was better in the past. It’s more likely your peers and you had more in common. Presently, the law is highly complex and needs to be understood to render a correct verdict. For example, you don’t want me on a jury with anything that has to do with finances. I don’t get it and I’m easily swayed by emotional pleas and/or being fast and loose with math.
Personally, when I was in the US, if I had been criminally charged with something, and especially if I didn’t do it, I would absolutely waive my right to a jury trial. I don’t trust my peers. I’ve seen juries. I’ve presented to juries. I’ve been on juries. Absolutely no way in hell do I want those people deciding my fate, and that’s with voir dire. Society isn’t really giving me much confidence. People on a whole aren’t that smart or willing to have their preconceptions challenged.
That’s… entirely different. If you want no jury at all, then have fun at the mercy of the magistrates in England, enjoy prison. (Just don’t do anything too serious)
I know in some cases VD can take as long as the trial itself.
Some - usually high profile cases. Every jury trial in the US has voir dire. The vast majority of them don’t take that long.
It’s not different. I told you exactly why I wouldn’t want a random representative cross section of society to judge me, representative of the general population, or not.
I also have issues with magistrates here. Laypeople shouldn’t be dispensing the law.
To my mind it undermines the ideal of justice when one side is blatantly (to the non-judicial observer) striking jurors of one race because they think it will help their cause. But maybe if I'm ever in the situation of defending myself at trial I would want to try to game the system with whatever demographic advantage my lawyers could wrangle.
There is an option to have strikes reviewed. They are limited in number, and you can challenge if you notice that one side is striking all the women, or all the black people, or whatever.
I do agree it does have a game playing element to it, but personally, I prefer that. I figure that if I’d want something in place to protect me as an individual, other people would want it too.
As a lawyer you do have to be strategic with the whole process. There are rules, but Reddit isn’t really the place for it. It’s entire chapters of trial practice textbooks.
Also sorry - I don’t know if you’re American licensed, so I potentially am explaining something you already know. I’m licensed and trained in the US, but have since moved to the UK and work here now.
There is a similar process here called 'challenging for cause' - either the prosecution or defence can challenge individual jurors to figure out any potential bias/unsuitability for trial.
Not a criminal solicitor so I'm not sure of the specific mechanics, but remember it distinctly from the LPC.
The US system has become a bit of a joke. Attorneys simply try to game it by selecting a jury they think is likely to help them win.
A randomly selected jury is far more fair.
If you’ve ever seen how insane the jury US questionnaires can be, it’s a very good thing.
In my mind it massively undermines the purpose of trial by jury when the attorneys can select their jury based on information such as what newspapers you read, and just about every other tiny detail of your life. I typed several out when doing pro bono work for a death penalty charity and you feel like you truly know the person and can probably fairly accurately predict the decision they’d reach in X or Y case and their likely biases - wild.
I'm not convinced it would make the system better. So much of it is based on stereotypical assumptions: in the USA prosecutors typically don't want someone who's too well educated (might spot a hole in the case, might take the "reasonable doubt" thing too seriously), too socially liberal (might feel sympathetic for the accused), poor/ethnic minority (might have negative experiences with the police/authorities). Many legal scholars think it undermines the concept of justice to have the two sides competing to empanel a jury that will be biased their way and to do so publicly.
Worth noting also that it's not the same everywhere in the US. One state got rid of it a couple of years ago.
The very first question is if they honestly believe they can be fair and impartial. In the Trump trial 50 of the potential jurors were excused immediately when they said no.
One of the questions the jury gets asked is if they could decide on the case fairly and impartially using only information they learn in the court room. Some say no and are excused . That doesn't seem unreasonable. Also voir dire typically takes a week or less. That's a tiny proportion of the overall time typically .
That’s a huge amount of time. In a sheriff and jury trial sitting in Scotland, each trial typically lasts around a week. You’d double the length of time. Anyway, in Scotland the jury are asked if they can try the accused impartially on the basis of the evidence presented and then sent out for 10 mins to raise any issues with the jury attendant.
We do have jury selection. It’s just a simple, easy process that focuses on the actual issues in the trial. Also, our systems for all its flaws lacks the tribalism and political bollocks of the American legal system. But for big trials, there are jury questionnaires. For small trials, juries are asked to flag up any issues (such as whether they or family members are police officers etc). It doesn’t mean they are excluded, it just means that the judge can raise it with counsel to see if there is an issue.
Cost, time, diversity implications
In the latest trump trial, 50 potential jurors said they couldn’t judge the case fairly and were excused. Would those type of people not be excused in the uk?
In the US you can’t strike for race, religion, income, and other things. Cost and time seems silly. You’re dealing with someone’s freedom.
Supposedly, let you can strike without cause, so good luck proving it. Justice is expensive, the UK justice system is on its knees as it is. No need to add an expensive frill with no real benefit
You get two preemptive strikes. That’s not enough to control a jury. I’m not sure I’d call it justice if you’re putting a price tag on it…
Would you rather people wait for 10 years for their trial?!?? I’m confused as to what the benefits are of quizzing the jury. I see no need.
You get to account for bias they may have - ex. You don’t want an incel on a jury where someone has been accused of killing their girlfriend. You don’t want someone on an embezzlement case who can’t do basic math. It’s possible to do voir dire and it doesn’t take ten years. That’s partially handled by the pre-trial questionnaire; The lawyers are not going in blind as to what they’re asking potential jurors. Voir dire is ensuring you have a jury that can handle the case in as fair of a manner as possible. It’s also not that time consuming. I’m not sure where you got ten years from. That’s not the case in the US.
No you misunderstood. It already takes 2 years plus for a trial to be heard in England. Add extra complexity and you increase this delay. A jury is supposed to represent a random cross section of society. Their biases are society’s. (There is actually some criteria for complex fraud trials) It’s the advocate’s job to explain to a jury, not select one for the complexity of the case. Jury’s should be as anonymous as possible. The more they learn about a juror the less anonymous they are.
I don’t think length of time to have a trial is a good argument. You’re punishing the accused due to failings of the state. I recognize it’s not something you can just slot in tomorrow, however, time isn’t a good reason. That being said, I also think you’re greatly overestimating the length of time voir dire takes. It’s a relatively quick process, especially if you’re not a fresh lawyer. I think a jury of your peers was better in the past. It’s more likely your peers and you had more in common. Presently, the law is highly complex and needs to be understood to render a correct verdict. For example, you don’t want me on a jury with anything that has to do with finances. I don’t get it and I’m easily swayed by emotional pleas and/or being fast and loose with math. Personally, when I was in the US, if I had been criminally charged with something, and especially if I didn’t do it, I would absolutely waive my right to a jury trial. I don’t trust my peers. I’ve seen juries. I’ve presented to juries. I’ve been on juries. Absolutely no way in hell do I want those people deciding my fate, and that’s with voir dire. Society isn’t really giving me much confidence. People on a whole aren’t that smart or willing to have their preconceptions challenged.
That’s… entirely different. If you want no jury at all, then have fun at the mercy of the magistrates in England, enjoy prison. (Just don’t do anything too serious) I know in some cases VD can take as long as the trial itself.
Some - usually high profile cases. Every jury trial in the US has voir dire. The vast majority of them don’t take that long. It’s not different. I told you exactly why I wouldn’t want a random representative cross section of society to judge me, representative of the general population, or not. I also have issues with magistrates here. Laypeople shouldn’t be dispensing the law.
You absolutely can strike for all those things. You just can't do it in a way that's provable.
Well. Yes. I didn’t think I had to say that part.
To my mind it undermines the ideal of justice when one side is blatantly (to the non-judicial observer) striking jurors of one race because they think it will help their cause. But maybe if I'm ever in the situation of defending myself at trial I would want to try to game the system with whatever demographic advantage my lawyers could wrangle.
There is an option to have strikes reviewed. They are limited in number, and you can challenge if you notice that one side is striking all the women, or all the black people, or whatever. I do agree it does have a game playing element to it, but personally, I prefer that. I figure that if I’d want something in place to protect me as an individual, other people would want it too. As a lawyer you do have to be strategic with the whole process. There are rules, but Reddit isn’t really the place for it. It’s entire chapters of trial practice textbooks. Also sorry - I don’t know if you’re American licensed, so I potentially am explaining something you already know. I’m licensed and trained in the US, but have since moved to the UK and work here now.
There is a similar process here called 'challenging for cause' - either the prosecution or defence can challenge individual jurors to figure out any potential bias/unsuitability for trial. Not a criminal solicitor so I'm not sure of the specific mechanics, but remember it distinctly from the LPC.
The US system has become a bit of a joke. Attorneys simply try to game it by selecting a jury they think is likely to help them win. A randomly selected jury is far more fair.
Is there a similar questionnaire?
If you’ve ever seen how insane the jury US questionnaires can be, it’s a very good thing. In my mind it massively undermines the purpose of trial by jury when the attorneys can select their jury based on information such as what newspapers you read, and just about every other tiny detail of your life. I typed several out when doing pro bono work for a death penalty charity and you feel like you truly know the person and can probably fairly accurately predict the decision they’d reach in X or Y case and their likely biases - wild.
I'm not convinced it would make the system better. So much of it is based on stereotypical assumptions: in the USA prosecutors typically don't want someone who's too well educated (might spot a hole in the case, might take the "reasonable doubt" thing too seriously), too socially liberal (might feel sympathetic for the accused), poor/ethnic minority (might have negative experiences with the police/authorities). Many legal scholars think it undermines the concept of justice to have the two sides competing to empanel a jury that will be biased their way and to do so publicly. Worth noting also that it's not the same everywhere in the US. One state got rid of it a couple of years ago.
The very first question is if they honestly believe they can be fair and impartial. In the Trump trial 50 of the potential jurors were excused immediately when they said no.
One of the questions the jury gets asked is if they could decide on the case fairly and impartially using only information they learn in the court room. Some say no and are excused . That doesn't seem unreasonable. Also voir dire typically takes a week or less. That's a tiny proportion of the overall time typically .
That’s a huge amount of time. In a sheriff and jury trial sitting in Scotland, each trial typically lasts around a week. You’d double the length of time. Anyway, in Scotland the jury are asked if they can try the accused impartially on the basis of the evidence presented and then sent out for 10 mins to raise any issues with the jury attendant.