Viewing Thread:
"Apparently we're too thick."

[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4113296.stm[/URL]

Just the start?

pauliewalnuts wrote:
>
> But the evidence would be open to interpretation, and if somebody had
> to condense it into layman's terms they could heaavily influence the
> jury's opinion.

Which is exactly what lawyers do when they instruct witnesses to only give a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

It's not a perfect system but it seems it needs both sides to make a decent summary of the points they are trying to make.

I think it's a good thing to an extent. Fundamentally, it's wrong of course, because you're taking power away from the people. However, I could foresee many better decisions, from someone with more experience and better judgement. You can also guarantee that the judge is fair, and smart.

The only problem is, that this can't be guaranteed, and one corrupt judge would make a complete farse of a case. Also, because there were more people making a decision before, the chances the a one off opinion will be drowned out by better opinions will not happen.

So overall?

Thumbs down.

Hedfix wrote:
> but surely some experts could explain the main points to the
> jury without the need for the jury to sift through mountains of
> paperwork?

But the evidence would be open to interpretation, and if somebody had to condense it into layman's terms they could heaavily influence the jury's opinion.

I think this is a good move. The more we can cut down court expenses, while still safeguarding people's right to fair justice, the better for every tax-payer.

Black Glove wrote:
> They could only give their opinions in court, which they probably
> would do anyway. It's up to the jury to make notes and stuff.

True but surely some experts could explain the main points to the jury without the need for the jury to sift through mountains of paperwork?

I suppose it's up to the judge, but if the points that the prosecution and defense cases hinge on can be explained without the need for mind-numbing sifting through papers then that should be allowed. Providing satisfactory definitions can be reached.

They could only give their opinions in court, which they probably would do anyway. It's up to the jury to make notes and stuff.

Perhaps they should handpick a jury of financial experts for such cases... but then there would be suspicion of an unfair trial.

Fair enough but if two financial experts from each side were to check those pages and present their findings to the jury that would simplify matters.

It's all about getting to the points that each side's arguments hinge on, isn't it?

Yes. But when I was at jury service the usher told us about a recent fraud case which went on for 19 weeks, and he said that the jury had to sift through hundreds of pages ("reams and reams" he said) of complex evidence. I wouldn't want to do it.

Good point but isn't it a failure of the prosecution and defense to not be able to simplify the discussion down to what they consider to be right or wrong or to make the facts comprehendable to the jurors?

I think this is right.
Image toddling along to jury service and you get lumbered with a mind-bogglingly complex fraud case which lasts for weeks and weeks... hearing the duller-than-dull evidence repeated over and over until you don't know your own name.

Yeah.