The Forum > General Discussion > Jury Duty vs Mark Standen's trial
Jury Duty vs Mark Standen's trial
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 15 August 2011 3:13:30 PM
| |
King Hazza,
I liked your post....having sat on Jury duty myself, I do find it inconvenient, especially when I was working, I was expected to front up for jury duty on my first day in a new job, fortunately my boss was very understanding. I am not sure about this, so don't quote me, but I was under the impression that one could request trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury, I hope this is true, because the lame brains that I encountered on my first jury duty made me very uncomfortable, not one of them took their job seriously, all they wanted was to get home. God forbid that I find myself before the courts with some of the so-called jurors. Will just have to keep my nose clean. Cheers King, NSB Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Monday, 15 August 2011 7:35:20 PM
| |
I have always worked in private enterprise where jury duty has always been treated as a bit of a joke. It was just an excuse drag out the last "this employee is critical" letter and tart it up a bit. They always worked - no one I've worked has ever been called in.
I won't be treating it as a joke any more. 15 weeks - that's almost 4 months. For a small company that is a huge imposition. I am not surprised some of the jurors were made redundant. If you aren't employed, the rates you are paid are almost an insult http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/F/fees_and_fares.aspx : $15..$20 per day. That could easily be the price of your public transport and lunch. On occasion I've heard judges complaining they only get retires and public servants on their juries. They and the rest of the legal fraternity are exempt of course. Surely they aren't surprised. Posted by rstuart, Monday, 15 August 2011 9:31:21 PM
| |
I had the experience a couple of years ago of sitting in on a trial of a friend, including during the jury selection process. The trial was in a small contry town and the jury was obviously composed of townsfolk. The barrister for my friend was very particular about the jury he wanted: mostly women, mostly beyond child-bearing age and mostly of low educational attainment.
He got mostly what he wanted, although in the end it didn't matter since the principal witness managed to perjure herself in the box and the trial was abandoned. The reason he wanted a panel like that? He was quite open about it: they're more likely to be swayed by an emotional final argument and less about the evidence, as well as being generally available for the full length of a trial. He says he tries for just that type of juror whenever he can. Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 3:04:15 AM
| |
I avoided it,called up many times but told a lie every time.
Come do not be surprised most do it. Gave evidence all too often, presented Industrial matters. But lie? yes the pittance paid, the weeks of work backing up. We should pay these poor beggars or set them free, no one should have to sell a home. Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 6:45:36 AM
| |
we are going over old ground
if we remove the right to a jury [ie being judged by equals] those in the jury miss the RIGHT to judge the law...as well as the crime juries vet out unfair laws but the juries are stacked with fools who think govt is allways right..we need informed jurors read up on jury nullification you will finf how i tried to explain it soooo many times if you take away living people you make a machine..that cant see shades of grey only black white..[so many are in hell simply cause they lied or were lied to] the judge is ONLY to adfvise on questions of law ie say what is a person..what is a victim..etc we have the magna carta for good reasons we been there tried that..! and absolute power corrupted absolutly then we also come to the place where you know who to threaten! underr law anything IN A BOX isnt there we allready got too many imbisiles in law law should be taught in school as many judges say ignorance of the law is no excuse yet fools dont know the only true law is based on a living victim..having been hurt by an other no injury..no crime for a jury to judge look at the darn word..IN-jury who judge a fair compensation the justness of the charge...process of law..etc etc no victim NO CRIME* Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 10:00:50 AM
| |
Indeed me and most of the people I know do whatever we can to get out of jury duty- especially as many of us are contract workers and not employees, and our specific circumstances unfortunately require our employers to actually hire someone else to fill in the jobs as long as we're gone, we do very much stand to lose our positions to someone else.
That, and the fact that I don't want to be locked away and subjected to the abusive manner of the employees, let alone parading my face in front of the person who might hold it against me if I convict them. Witness trials were bad enough- the lawyers actually once told the court out loud my full name and address- and the person I was witnessing against (it was a brawl I was standing near- next time the police ask- I didn't see anything- and they can bloody well blame the contemptuous antics the only employed participants in the courts endanger me with). Quite frankly unless the courts adapt to a world that does NOT stop for them- or else, they adapt to a world where they have to justify the world stopping for them and properly protect and look after their participants (witnesses, that is- juries shouldn't even be there)- it will only continue to go downhill. Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 10:53:03 AM
| |
Dear King,
If I was on trial for a crime I didn't commit I would rather plead my case if front of a judge (even though some of them may be a bit dodgy), rather than in front of "12 good men and true," who didn't really want to be there and couldn't wait to leave. On the other hand, on the law of averages - wouldn't being judged by 12 instead of one -tip the odds in one's favour? Quite a conundrum. Let's hope that it's one I'll never have to face. Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:11:25 PM
| |
there is no need to lie
to get out of jury 'duty' when the sherrif rings you simply ask about jury nulification [you will never be called again] other means to escape 'doing your duty' are to say you know the 'defendant' [this only works once] the other is to say as belly has said on the other thread i allready made up my mind..[but be warned sometimes thats egsactly what their looking for dumb deaf/blind sheep who love hating other who love simplistic judgements who are their to do their 'duty'..to wit find guilt blame who love the power of going along with the crowd they love complicite yes people so be disagreeable..and ask plenty of questions say i will google that... [thats [poisen] they need sheep Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:15:25 PM
| |
It is a fake symbolism by one's peers especially given that jury selection is so contrived. However, the ACT is often criticised for the large number of innocent verdicts compared to the rest of Australia. Mainly due to a large number of trials being decided by a Judge. The Joe Cinque trial was one such case.
This might mean juries are jailing a large number of innocent people or that Judges are over-analytical and are freeing a large number of guilty people. While I can see all the problems inherent in juries I am not entirely sure that a panel of Judges or magistrates would result in fairer assessments. Juries are often 'led' by the Judge on certain points of law. Is that enough? There are many cases in the US certainly where innocent men have been jailed and later found innocent but thankfully we don't have the pressure of plea bargaining in Australia in the same way as far as I am aware. Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 3:34:00 PM
| |
Well the only system that does it differently is Germany- and there aren't any substantial differences with the outcome as to those of our system, or America's, that use juries.
As it is, the potential jurors are summoned by random selection; but the 'finalists' are chosen by the judge and lawyers, the information they are allowed (and not allowed) to know, is decided by the judge and lawyers, and even their answer too can be rejected (or even the whole case can be terminated) by the judge at his own discretion for any reason he likes. The powers or even say of the jurors is absolutely minimal- they suggest a verdict to the judge, requiring the judge actually accepts the reasons they gave. Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 17 August 2011 10:29:48 AM
| |
Sorry for this late reply..."The trial was in a small contry town and the jury was obviously composed of townsfolk."
Well thank-god for the banjo players.... no victim NO CRIME* Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 10:00:50 AM And that about somes it up. What would we do without lawyers:) what would we do....:) I think i need a job..., LEAP Posted by Quantumleap, Friday, 19 August 2011 7:43:25 PM
| |
mmmmmm who do let in.....Mark Standen found guilty at drugs trial
August 11, 2011 Ads by Google Free Practice Account www.GFT.com.au Want to learn more about cfds? We can help. Learn More Standen found guilty in drug trial Former top NSW crime fighter, Mark Standen has been found guilty of plotting to import 300kg of pseudroephedrine. Video feedback Video settings Former NSW crime fighter Mark Standen has been found guilty of plotting to import 300 kilograms of pseudoephedrine into Australia. Standen, 54, was also found guilty of taking part in the supply of 300 kilograms of the substance, which is used in the manufacture of illegal amphetamine drugs, and guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. After a trial that began in March, the NSW Supreme Court jury retired on Monday afternoon and delivered its verdicts today. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mark-standen-found-guilty-at-drugs-trial-20110811-1inr7.html#ixzz1VSz4tNT3 Did I say in the 21th recent callings of humans, what is in the old?, and I rest my case:)....it seems like 19/20 thinking's, than something advanced. When this planet is dead, give me a call. On bottmcfungas@hotmail.com and have your say:) why not! its your planet:) I hope the gooood people are here and in-control. A banana anyone:) LEA Posted by Quantumleap, Friday, 19 August 2011 7:55:38 PM
| |
Ok - the jury has to decide whether Standen conspired with Jalalaty. Standen denies it, and the jury had to sit through 20 plus days of his denials in the witness box. What the jury did not get told was that Jalalaty had already pleaded guilty. Kind of relevant really that if two guys get charged with conspiracy, the case would be stronger if one of them says it was true.
The whole system is broken. Judges get lifetime appointments and are not investigated or accountable for stupid decisions. Sentences are out of touch with community standards. Evidence is “withheld” from juries for being too prejudicial, even though it is relevant. There is no search for the truth, and the rich get better results because they can afford better lawyers. Overall, the whole court system is a game. This clip pretty well sums up how the system has failed everyone except the lawyers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFa30pD3N8 Posted by Fred Ward, Friday, 19 August 2011 8:59:57 PM
| |
Fred, Fred, Fred....while lawyers in some cases do and will in some cases, use the system for what it is. I have full commitment for the LAW, which doesn't look at emotions in all, but the facts as they are presented are in the scope for what LAW can only provide at this time.
Tell you what Fred.....when they invent the fool-proof lie-detector, 95% of all that's put on it, will fail. Tell me Fred, what if you were put on such a machine, would you be willing to stand on all your little dark secrets and would pay the ferry-man? Yeah! right Fred, I can see you putting your hand up as I type.....its the one's that yell...its not me...that's the one's that are fully human. Got the picture yet? I'll give you something less mind bending....." Go back to the first time you did something wrong....and you can start your sentence from now:).....See! Law is what it is. " An in-perfect being, making a in-perfect judgement, on an ape, that its probability wise, not much smarter than me. Yes Fred! Somethings are just black and white. LEA Posted by Quantumleap, Saturday, 20 August 2011 4:04:00 AM
| |
Those are very good points Fred- I recall a previous case where an alleged mobster allegedly involved in a crime- where the case was aborted by the judge on the grounds that a TV show called 'Underbelly' came on and it might create prejudice in the jury.
It's pathetic; if the Jury have no real power to do the job they are (forced with threats) to do, then they shouldn't be made to do it at all. Add to the fact that judges tend to show extreme leniency to wealthy or powerful people (including that American Christian Leader caught drunk driving) only brings the courts to further travesty. Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 20 August 2011 4:06:00 PM
|
And the outcome? Standen's lawyer tried to abort the case, and the judge simply ignored both him and the letter and insisted it continue until they finally gave a verdict.
A day or so later, plenty of people are writing in demanding the old system be abolished outright and replaced with either a panel of judges and magistrates, or a professional employed jury.
And I must say I agree- both of those options (among many other considered) are certainly better than what we have now.
Adding a letter in the SMH referring to some studies in the British courts where juries simply dragged out the trial to benefit from the food and services- and when these were taken away- simply rushed the decision to get out faster.
After all of these- can we ask NOW for what reason we continue this awful system, instead of the perfectly feasible alternatives mentioned? Perhaps it is a fear of change (ignoring modern day Germany already abolished it). It's not like the jurors have any power in the courts anyway- all they can do is suggest guilt or innocence to the judge- whether they accept it or abort the case because they didn't like the 'prejudiced' answer.
Surely the right of 12 people NOT being drafted is worth dropping the fake symbolism of 'peers'? As is the fact that the accused is not going to be judged by a panel of people who don't want to be there and are more concerned about how they are going to keep their jobs after the trial?