Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Fascinating post by Dizzy on being on a jury and what he thinks about the experience - verdict positive. He points out something I'd not thought about, that a defense lawer can scatter inconsistent doubts around and a naive jury might be influenced by this without realising that an innocent defendant would have a consistent defense. One counter argument to this is that a good prosecution should be able to point this out. While the jury system comes out well, Dizzy says that "you could find quite a large number of guilty people acquitted". I'm sorry if it is "a lot" but a defining point about the jury system is that "beyond reasonable doubt" is designed to let off some people who should be found guilty. Why? Because, in their wisdom, our forefathers who created it understood that no system is perfect. Judges tire, juries are poorly influenced, lawyers are uneven (to put it mildly). Therefore, and this is the key point, given that we cannot get it right 100 per cent of the time we have a choice: do we send innocent people to jail in order to ensure that every guilty person is punished? Or do we let off some who are guilty in order to ensure, so far as we can, that no one who is innocent is found guilty?
Think which you would prefer if you are innocent?
I'm not saying that if "large" numbers of guilty are let off that would be acceptable. But our system has made a historic call that should not be reversed: in order to ensure in so far as we can that no innocent person is punished (because this would mean that we as a society had committed a crime), some who are in fact guilty are bound to be let off.
This is an excellent system. Striving for perfection creates authoritarian regimes which anyway don't work. Long live juries!
