Should juries be allowed to decide sentences?

[vantastic]

I vote no...

[johny_roberts]

Thats what Judges should do.....

So only guilty or not guilty thats fucking it........

[Scythe]

Having juries decide sentences would be like the families of murder victims deciding sentencing. You'd get a lot of revenge, but not much justice.

[ShinymetalASS]

Juries decide facts, judges decide law.

Even the juries deciding facts part makes me uncomfortable.

[Blink]

Juries should not be allowed to recommend sentencing.

Judges however should be more accountable for poor decisions when sentencing.

[dwarfthrower]

Juries decide facts, judges decide law.
Judges interpret law. They're still subject to the same errors and biases that everyone else has.

Even the juries deciding facts part makes me uncomfortable.
We should open up the whole thing to one of those SMS polls, send GUILTY to 19300 UDECIDE.

[vantastic]

We should open up the whole thing to one of those SMS polls, send GUILTY to 19300 UDECIDE.

roflmao... you wanna be the first contestant don't ya? ;) The GRAND PRIZE is a Shiny Needle

[kleph]

i once knew a prosecutor that explained to me a serious problem in the jury selection process is that it is designed to eliminate anyone with any degree of expertise or experience from the process of deciding someone's fate.

[ShinymetalASS]

Judges interpret law. They're still subject to the same errors and biases that everyone else has.


Technically they decide law since a judges 'decision' becomes law unless successfully appealed.

:)

And whilst every human being is inherently biased at least a judge has extensive knowledge in how to properly interpret law.

You don't get a lawyer to diagnose an medical condition.

[ShinymetalASS]

i once knew a prosecutor that explained to me a serious problem in the jury selection process is that it is designed to eliminate anyone with any degree of expertise or experience from the process of deciding someone's fate.

One of my problems with the system.

Each side will eliminate potential jurors based on the level of bias they are assessed to have.

Kind of like in the Devil's Advocate (as a simple example).

Each party will do their utmost to get a jury sympathetic to their cause.

[kleph]

Each party will do their utmost to get a jury sympathetic to their cause.

which, as a result, will give you the lowest common denominator. and, in my experience, that is pretty fucking low. i can't say i feel more comfortable about the justice system in this country in light of the level of stupidity and ignorance on the part of those making the decisions about one's fate in jury trials on one hand and the growing usurpation of power by the courts over the manner the country is governed on the other.

[vantastic]

Well maybe this new idea has a deeper meaning behind it... perhaps its a strong way to say:

Don't commit a crime!

[ShinymetalASS]

the growing usurpation of power by the courts over the manner the country is governed on the other.

You mean like the Supreme Court appointing your President?


A Supreme Court (mostly) chosen by your President's father (and sympathisers).


I completely agree with your point though kleph.

[ms edeity]

Our own judicial system has its faults, granted, hence the re-education process not unlike the introduction of bedside manner being taught to newer doctors. As with any system, it takes awhile. I am glad we haven't adopted an elected judicial system here like the US has. Instead of trying to work back to legal principles, this leads to more of the partisian, popularist interpretations. Having a handpicked, biased, uneducated(in law) and often emotive group (ie a jury) decide sentencing is fraught with problems.

[dwarfthrower]

Well maybe this new idea has a deeper meaning behind it... perhaps its a strong way to say:

Don't commit a crime!
Unfortunately it's not only those who have committed a crime who front the judicial system. (The whole idea of a trial being to decide if an individual did - in fact - commit a crime or not)

[ShinymetalASS]

Also remember that a jury is picked by the lawyers so the quality of jury is really going to be influenced by the quality of lawyer, which usually is also reflected by the cost of the lawyer, meaning poor people have a shitty jury.

At least juries are almost never used in Queensland.

[vantastic]

We just need Judge Judy...

[ShinymetalASS]

Unfortunately it's not only those who have committed a crime who front the judicial system. (The whole idea of a trial being to decide if an individual did - in fact - commit a crime or not)


Also think of those jurisdictions that use juries to decide civil trials (disputes between individuals/companies/etc)

[kleph]

You mean like the Supreme Court appointing your President?


A Supreme Court (mostly) chosen by your President's father (and sympathisers).


I completely agree with your point though kleph.

actually, no. that is actually one of the few instances of the separation of powers working at least in the style it was intended. i am refering to the usurpation of broad swaths of governmental power by the judicial system - an almost government by fiat. for instance, the louisiana penal system and the dallas housing authority were both under the rule of a state judge for decades following controversial cases. california has had a number of similar situations as well.

[ShinymetalASS]

actually, no. that is actually one of the few instances of the separation of powers working at least in the style it was intended.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. No one will EVER convince me Mr Bush Jnr was legitimately elected.

[dwarfthrower]

Mr Bush Jnr was legitimately elected.
Twice in fact. The second time with an increased majority.

[kleph]

i'm not saying that. i am saying it was the courts role to rule on the merits of the case presented to it, which it did.

[vantastic]

As duke nukem would say "Let god sortem out"

[ShinymetalASS]

Twice in fact. The second time with an increased majority.


It's amazing what an electronic voting system outsourced to a sypathetic private company will get you.

[dwarfthrower]

It's amazing what an electronic voting system outsourced to a sypathetic private company will get you.
Your hat is ready now:
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1968/dapperfrontln5.jpg

[ShinymetalASS]

No thanks Dwarvie, got my own ;)

[slaine1]

You mean like the Supreme Court appointing your President?


A Supreme Court (mostly) chosen by your President's father (and sympathisers).


I completely agree with your point though kleph.

Well look at the present composition of Australia's High Court. Many of them appointed by the Liberal govt. I can at least see some sort of merit in appointing Crennan, Gummow and Hayne. Gleeson is noted for his technical brilliance. I am at a total loss as to how Heydon and Callinan got on the bench!

[ShinymetalASS]

Kirby was my man.

[Sagacious]

Placing the question of guilt or innocence in the hands of 12 people who are not smart enough to avoid having to do jury duty is quite dangerous enough but letting them set the penalty too is INSANE

[Aardvark]

Court cases already take too long. Trying to get a general consensus from 12 good men and true about how a criminal should be punished will just clog up the system more.

I vote we return to the days by trial by ordeal

[Dundasbro]

As duke nukem would say "Let god sortem out"
Wtf does that have to do with anything? This is a serious forum and not made for your mealy mouthed comments on whatever you please.:mob:

For the record i'm definatly against a jury deciding sentancing, there is too much bias involved and as said by Scythe before, you'd get a lot of revenge but no justice.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

For the Sydney Zgeekers, if you remember the case of the Lebbo gang rapists a few years back, why was it so wrong for the two jurors to go to the scene of the crime to inspect for themselves? I never understood that.

[kré]

i so wholeheartedly believe that the answer to this question should be a resounding no that i almost want to stab the people that clicked yes.

[kré]

For the Sydney Zgeekers, if you remember the case of the Lebbo gang rapists a few years back, why was it so wrong for the two jurors to go to the scene of the crime to inspect for themselves? I never understood that.
yeah i remember that, but i have no idea why

[kleph]

ok, but now provide a better option.

[Sagacious]

For the Sydney Zgeekers, if you remember the case of the Lebbo gang rapists a few years back, why was it so wrong for the two jurors to go to the scene of the crime to inspect for themselves? I never understood that.
If the jury as a whole get to see the 'locis in quo' as part of the trial process then that viewing is evidence in the trial and can be taken into account by the jury in arriving a their verdict.

If members of the jury independent of the trial proces take it upon them selves to take a view of the 'locus in quo' that view is not evidence admitted att he trial or tested in the trial process and as such is not available to the jury as a whole to be taken into account in arriving at their verdict.

so the stink is about the 'evidence' used by the jurors (as opposed to the jury as a whole) to arrive at their verdict and whether it was in fact evidence or not and whether or not the jury all had access to it.

[Sagacious]

ok, but now provide a better option.
a better option to what.

[ShinymetalASS]

a better option to what.


Juries I think.

I believe there already is a better option.

They are commonly known as judges.