It’s still crazy to me that the UK system relies on 12 rando’s getting together to make an informed decision, and to not cock it up.
Given half of people are below average (median) IQ, that means you have a 1/4096 chance of having your Jury be done by all idiots.
When jury members ‘swear on the bible’ I think that is very worrying. You are expecting rational and critical thinking from people who believe in a mystical sky fairy. 😳
>Asked if the jury had reached any verdicts on which at least 10 agreed, the forewoman initially said “no”.
>
>She quickly corrected herself and found Paul Yusuff not guilty of possessing a blade.
And that was on her *second* attempt.
Not actually cleared. The jury didn’t make a mistake, the foreman announced a verdict the jury hadn’t actually agreed to.
The foreman has pretty much one job, and it’s a really simple one. It’s seriously hard to fuck up that hard.
Imo Jury trails seem bad, until you look at how much worse the alternatives often are. I’d trust a group of 12 random people over a possibly corrupt individual whose probably going to be more motivated by their career and the optics than whether I happen to be guilty or innocent.
It was the foreman that was a moron. So only one of them tbf
Two attempts to say the word ‘yes’ and she still got it wrong
I think they need to assess who is in the jury cause this cunt was thick as shit. These cunts shouldn’t be allowed to walk the streets. If they were to kill another person this dumb ass should be held accountable for fucking it up. So many vile people in this world. Imagine what we could achieve if we weren’t shitty to one another.
I’d just go on my gut feeling. Let common sense prevail 😅. In for a stabbing, has previous for possession of offensive weapons and assaults? LOCK HIM UP! In for burglaries, has previous for shoplifting? SEND THEM DOWN! Easy work.
In Scotland, the juries are even bigger. 15 in them from a much, much smaller population, and three verdicts to consider.
9 comments
It’s still crazy to me that the UK system relies on 12 rando’s getting together to make an informed decision, and to not cock it up.
Given half of people are below average (median) IQ, that means you have a 1/4096 chance of having your Jury be done by all idiots.
When jury members ‘swear on the bible’ I think that is very worrying. You are expecting rational and critical thinking from people who believe in a mystical sky fairy. 😳
>Asked if the jury had reached any verdicts on which at least 10 agreed, the forewoman initially said “no”.
>
>She quickly corrected herself and found Paul Yusuff not guilty of possessing a blade.
And that was on her *second* attempt.
Not actually cleared. The jury didn’t make a mistake, the foreman announced a verdict the jury hadn’t actually agreed to.
The foreman has pretty much one job, and it’s a really simple one. It’s seriously hard to fuck up that hard.
Imo Jury trails seem bad, until you look at how much worse the alternatives often are. I’d trust a group of 12 random people over a possibly corrupt individual whose probably going to be more motivated by their career and the optics than whether I happen to be guilty or innocent.
It was the foreman that was a moron. So only one of them tbf
Two attempts to say the word ‘yes’ and she still got it wrong
I think they need to assess who is in the jury cause this cunt was thick as shit. These cunts shouldn’t be allowed to walk the streets. If they were to kill another person this dumb ass should be held accountable for fucking it up. So many vile people in this world. Imagine what we could achieve if we weren’t shitty to one another.
I’d just go on my gut feeling. Let common sense prevail 😅. In for a stabbing, has previous for possession of offensive weapons and assaults? LOCK HIM UP! In for burglaries, has previous for shoplifting? SEND THEM DOWN! Easy work.
In Scotland, the juries are even bigger. 15 in them from a much, much smaller population, and three verdicts to consider.