Heaven help us from juries who get a say in sentencing.

Most people are frankly too stupid and too ill-informed to make any sort of a rational judgment about a matter as complex as sentencing. Want to have a laugh? Go into the shopping centre of your choosing and ask the first five people you meet the following questions:

1. What is the difference between murder and manslaughter?
2. What is the concept of the separation of powers?
3. What is hearsay evidence?
4. What are the different levels of court in your state?
5. What does "sub judice" mean? Why is it important?
6. Have you ever formed an opinion in relation to a legal case? If so, did you read the judgment in the case, or did you just go from what the media said?

If you REALLY want to be scared, ask those same five questions of a journalist.

If I were charged with a criminal offence, I surely wouldn't want a jury. who wants their fate to be sealed by 12 people who are pissed off at having to do jury duty in the first place?

Surely the ‘chocolate wheel’ system of justice is in need of review. Every other institution has had to submit to examination and review so why not the legal club.

With the pridefullness one expects from a member of the legal club Michael tells us that our justice system (where have you been Michael) is based on hundreds of years of practice and has served us well. Why is it then Michael that the justice system is sexist? A judge who recently heard multiple cases of rape asked that a muslim witness be sworn in. A FEMALE court clerk moved towards the witness with a qur’an when the judge said in a soft voice that a MALE should do the swearing in. Tell us Michael, where in that 800-year-old tradition of legal history does it say that females are second class citizens?

Hang on Sage.

First things first: you are absolutely right on two counts. First, the judge who made an issue of the court officer's gender was reprehensible and their behaviour should be treated with the disdain it deserves. No question. Second, courts should be open to scrutiny like every other agency is. Again, no question.

But neither of these propositions propels us towards the idea that double jeopardy should be allowed, or that juries should have a role in sentencing.

If reform of the courts is required, then let it be done by a sensible process, not by populist politicians bidding for the next swinging vote.

Anth

I agree with most of the above comments. Those who want tougher sentences should also realise that a jury wouldn't necessarily give a tougher sentence anyway - they may like the look of a guilty defendant and give them a lighter one. This debate is generally a very uninformed one - judges are often accused of being out of touch with the community, in an ivory tower etc, but judges will point out that they in fact hear the most horrible stories and deal with some of the most despicable and degraded people much more than your average punter on the street.

The media like to whip up controversy, and the legal system is one of their favourite targets - which is fine, as long as the criticism is fair and informed, and not populist ranting.

The NSW Law Reform Commission has published a discussion paper on jury input to sentencing. It's available on their website. I haven't had time to read it properly, but it raises some interesting problems.

1. Some are mangeable--like the fact that a jury would have to be recalled some time after their verdict, to hear cousel for both sides present evidence and arguments in relation to the sentencing. Some of them might not be able to attend.

2.It would be possible at that later hearing for one of more of the jurors to declare that he or she no longer thought that the person should have been found guilty. That would provide the basis for an appeal.

3. It would be possible, so the NSWLRC says, for a jury to be asked what evidence and argument had persuaded them to find the prisoner guilty. The trial judge might then pass that material on to a higher court as evidence that is relevant to an appeal.

The confidentiality of the jury room would be abandonded.

A good deal of mischief, that is, could be made, and probably would be.

4. Alternatively, the LRC says, the jury might only be asked whether the offence was a very serious instance of the crime in question, or a lesser one.

I worry about sentencing for scandalous crimes. We already have in NSW the leaders of both sides of the parliament trying to outdo each other in demanding higher and higher sentences for those convicted of such crimes. Would jurors distance themselves from such cowardly hullabaloo? They might. But the US experience is not promising.

>>".........recent calls to give jurors powers to make sentencing recommendations to trial judges...."<<

The word here is RECOMMENDATION - not passing sentence!!

I have no problems in the jury having some input into sentencing ... as in "RECOMMENDING" some form of sentence.

After all is the sentence supposed to reflect some of the community expectations? Why should some puffed up pontificating "judge" (sic) have total sway on forming public opinion and imposing totally irrelevant sentences?

How many "judges" have been gently woken from their drunken slumber while supposedly listening to important points of law - these are more perilous to true justice than having some recommendations given to a sentence .... after all the word IS recommendation - which does not have to be taken into consideration by anyone - but it does reflect something of the public angst.

Now why would anyone have any fear of facing their peers Leigh? Obviously you are so puffed up with your own self importance, that you seem to be way and beyond the common "hoi polloi" - Have you no faith in our justice system? Or do you think the key might be lost after it was closed on you by "12 drongoes true"? Might do you well to have your self inflated balloon of pitiable ignorance and arrogance pin pricked on occasion...