The not guilty verdicts handed down to the Waihopai spy-base accused surprised me. I thought the case was desperately unwinnable for the accused.
But that was because I was thinking like a lawyer. Had a judge been deciding on the guilt or innocence of the accused I suspect the result would have been very different. Of course, jury trials don't get decided by lawyers or judges.
And that isn't a criticism of the jury system. The lawyer may shake his head in wonder, but juries exist to apply a "common touch" to the law. The jury represents the views of the community. The accused trio obviously convinced twelve members of the community that what they did was justified, and good on them for doing so.
However, the case raises some interesting questions. Will it empower protest groups to break the law? Or is this really just a one-off case whose facts were unique?
I expect many willl now call for the entire jury system to be abolished. Just like after the Bain case. We're a vindictive lot. We only ever complain when someone walks away.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
2 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the reasons the death penalty was abolished in the UK was because juries were refusing to convict. I am a very strong believer in the jury system. Like democracy, juries are an impicit belief in decentralised power, collective common sense, and a bulwark against the tyranny of technocratic "experts".
ReplyDeleteRather than questioning the need for juries, I believe we need to strengthen them, and stop the current abuse of the system where anyone with a letter from their employer can get out of jury service and instead force citizens to comply with their substantive conscription into doing their civic duty.
Here is an idea I would like to ask you as a lawyer your opinion. I like the idea of empanelling "grand juries" of local people in local communites, who would sit (for example) in local school halls on weekends and, guided by JP's and MOJ advisors, try and sentence local miscreants for petty crimes like vandalism, littering, graffitti etc etc...
If we want to strengthen the jury system we need to fund it properly. otherwise it will continue to be the domain of the retired and unemployed.
ReplyDeleteThe community jury idea is an interesting one, and similar things have been tried in other countries. But I'd go a step further. I'm a fan of restorative justice, where the offender and community work together to address the problem and find a solution/sentence that fits. It can work well where the offender isn't a hardened criminal and where the offence isn't a serious one. They already use family group conferences in the youth justice system. It may be possible to extend this scheme to other areas.
Criminal offending by Maori is a major issue in this country, and a system that recognised Maori values of community and group consensus might do wonders. But we all know that will never happen ("one law for all" etc).