Hello, i am currently studying in Taylors College, Malaysia, doing my SAM and i have chosent this topic as my civic participation task topic. Malaysia has abolished the jury system in 1995. Thus i am seeking opinions and any further information about this issue..

thanks alot for feedbacks.

yes, of course. then the judge can explain why they came to the wrong conclusion, and under his guidance they can go back and get the right answer. i recently suggested that a jury should be very large, in the hundreds, but i've changed my mind.

to get the right answer with a minimum of wasted time, one juror is enough. he can be attached to an electrical system that will help him say the right verdict, by discouraging the wrong one with mild electric shocks. initially mild..

As far as I know, jurors are given very explicit instructions by the judge, along the lines of, if you believe this and don't believe that, then your decision should be this... So the reasoning is already very restricted by the judge's instructions. Jurors decide who is telling the truth and who is lying and innocence or guilt follows from that. At least, that is what they are ordered to do. They may make their minds up based on any number of factors then rig each decision to produce the outcome they want. However if they do that then they wouldn't be honest about their reasons anyway, they would just give a justification, not the real reason.

Dear oh dear DEMOS. And I thought I was cynical about our justice system!

Yes jurors should be required to give reasons for their verdicts.

There should also be some form of penalty for jurors who can’t give sufficient reasoning and who can’t demonstrate that they have been listening to the proceedings.

The main advantage of requiring jurors to give reasons would be to get them to tune in and uphold their responsibilities to make a valued judgement.

I think a couple of the problems with our jury system is that people are compelled to fulfil the role when they may particularly not want to, or may find the proceedings boring and tune out.

Explicit instructions from the judge and an emphasis of the responsibility that they bear may not be enough to make some jurors uphold their duties….unless they are required at the end to show that they have heard and weighed up all the evidence.

i'm sorry, ludwig, my tolerance is at an end. i just smiled and shook my head, when you supported nuclear power, sedition laws, john howard, and lawyers. but requiring jurors to satisfy someone that their reasons are adequate, their understanding sound? who makes this determination?

and a penalty if they get it wrong? why not use electric shock, and make sure they get it right the first time?

think about this, ludwig, and if you won't recant, you must sit at the other end of the table- with alzo, runner, and benjamin.

more seriously, the point of jury trials is to keep the result in tune with community expectations, not to get the legal guild view. jurors must be free to speak their decision without constraint. the way to deal with rogue viewpoints is large juries and large majority vote.