The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Majority verdicts won’t see justice done > Comments

Majority verdicts won’t see justice done : Comments

By Michael Bosscher, published 15/12/2005

Michael Bosscher argues against Queensland allowing majority verdicts for murder trials.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I agree that jury verdicts should be unanimous.

If a reasonable juror has doubt then their is reasonable doubt.

If a juror is not a reasonable person then they should be screened out during the selection process.
Posted by Terje, Thursday, 15 December 2005 9:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viva Joh's jury, eh!
Posted by DFXK, Friday, 16 December 2005 12:12:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am confused about this new 11-1 jury system. I thought it meant that in trials for murder, robbery etc, 11 jurors would be needed to convict, but that in the case of terrorists or illegal immigrants only 1 would be needed.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 16 December 2005 7:30:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Majority verdicts can go both ways. At the moment it is possible for one juror to prevent a verdict of guilty being delivered, and this is what Michael Bosscher is worried will be eliminated with majority verdicts.

But I don't believe that Michael has thought his thought the case through.

What if at present eleven jurors wanted to acquit, and the rogue juror was the one who thought that the accused was guilty. This happens.

Therefore a new trial would be ordered, just as if the rogue juror was the one who thought the accused was not guilty.

It means that an accused may have to face a second trial, giving the Crown a chance to examine what happened in the trial, and close off any doubts that were raised by cross examination, by the introduction of additional evidence or by stronger initial examination of witnesses.

It would also mean that the defence case would be revealed to the Crown in the first trial, enabling the Crown to meet that case on perhaps a different basis in the second.

Actually, I believe in the strength of unanimous verdicts, either way. Unanimous verdicts go hand in hand with 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Unanimity, as well as anonymity, (try saying that fast!) are the cornerstones of our jury system.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 3:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a keen collector of films. I recently watched '12 Angry Men' - an American movie about the situation where a single juror believed in a young man's innocence and the remaining 11 didn't.

As a commentary on the death penalty, racism and unanimous verdict it is an engrossing story - thoroughly recommend it to any.

As for majority verdicts - not good enough, not near enough. Has to be unanimous.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 5 January 2006 12:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy