Author clearly appreciates and respects the fundamentals driving the law... LOGIC and REASON.

It is a basic logical fallacy, that a postion is logical due to the number of people who hold or dont hold a position.

He is advocating the force of numbers, aka 'might makes right.' Well, l guess its democratic. Mob-ocrazy.

REASON is not determined by the force of numbers.

A person under attack has no obligation (but does have a right) to defend or explain themselves. That burden is with the claimant. Especially, not under DURESS. If 11 jurors are of one view and want to impose that view, its THEIR obligation to explain THEMSELVES and convince the unconvinced.

l have no duty to defend myself in the face of your desire to sway me. Do your own work.

Authors position reads like an elaborate strawman.

Might as well just put these matters to a television poll. Afterall, the majority knows best, even when saying 1+1=3. In fact, especially so.

What if someone just says they're voting a particular way because they feel like it. Because all the reasons dont stack up. Because of gut feel, intuition. Thats virtually indefeasible. You cannot invalidate a feeling. Assessing the character of all the players is a very important aspect of deciding anything. What if ya just dont believe or trust what you're hearing. When in doubt... dont.

Reasonable doubt? Does an unquantifiable distrust or disbelief constitute being reasonable? That would be the easiest escape route for the 12th man and it would no doubt help the majority to continue exasperating themselves. Cant l just play dumb, be emotional and claim confusion. Can the unreasonable be reasonable.

Can a potential juror, during selection, beg off jury duty by saying they are unreasonable and only trust their instincts, intuition, feeling? Hmmm, now that would be a useful way to avoid public duty in the interests of keeping the mortgage paid.

Author is advocating blatant intimidation.

Careful what you wish for, you may get it. You too will have to live in the world you attempt to create.

"Blatantly obvious to everyone"
I was a member of a jury in a case which was 'blatantly obvious to everyone'. The way the matter was reported in the media was so different from the way the actual evidence panned out that I have adopted the practice of giving media reports no credence whatsoever - the idea that people should be convicted on the strength of them - since it is the only knowledge 'everyone' has - is outrageous.

Also, there would have to be a trial for the 'hold-out' juror - what would happen if there was a hold-out juror in that trial, and a hold-out juror in that trial, etc? We would have an exponential increase in court cases, what a ridiculous concept.

Also, a great frustration as a juror is that you cannot satisfy your own queries on the matter before you - you are obliged to make your decision solely on the evidence that counsel decides to present or statements the judge decides to make. Jurors have no control over the content on which they make their decisions so it could be fundamentally unjust to hold them responsible for any mistakes they might make.

At one trial we returned to the jury room for the first tea break - only prosecution counsel had spoken and even they were only half-way through their opening address and the gentleman next to me said, 'Well, he is obviously guilty.' This is the sort of stuff that makes my blood run cold, ie people's readiness to convict on bugger-all or media-only information.

DEMOS, you specifically started this threat to solicit my response.

Well, you got it. So is that it? Do you now accept everything that I have said?

Are not going to partake in any further debate?

The problem with your case dickie, is that it could have easily been reversed. The witness was lying. Or the drugs really were his partners.

You basically GUESSED that he was guilty, a bit irresponsible for a juror. You were LUCKY enough on both occasions to have been right.

Steel,

It is rather presumptious for you to suggest that I am an "irresponsible" juror.

I did emphasise the points in those two cases: "circumstantial evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt." I made my judgement clearly on those two issues. The remainder of the jury chose not to consider "circumstantial evidence", therefore claiming there was no proof.

I remind you that prior to DNA testing, most judicial outcomes for rapes and murders were a result of "circumstantial evidence." Most times there are no witnesses to these offences.

In the case of No.2, in my previous post where the defendant grabbed a girl's breasts, that defendant admitted to being at that bar on that date,, in the precise location within the bar (next to the ladies' toilets) at the precise time the witness claimed.

In addition, the offence occurred whilst he was visiting the town, for three days, from another community and his employment record confirmed that.

Given there are at least 50 bars in my community, I saw the circumstantial evidence as a reason to deem the defendant guilty, amongst other implicating factors.

The girl had reported the incident to the police within ten minutes of the offence. By the time the police had arrived, the defendant had vanished.

Some six months later, she recognised the defendant in the main street and immediately went to the police station. I also concluded that if the defendant had been a "local" the alleged victim would have had the opportunity to identify him much earlier. However, his trips to my community were few and far between.

My conclusion wasa result of being "beyond reasonable doubt" and as I mentioned earlier, both my conclusions have been vindicated.

I also advise, that though members of both juries appeared well educated, they were confused over the terms of reference I had set myself - "circumstantial evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt."

In fact the jurors sent a note to the judge presiding, requesting a definition of "beyond reasonable doubt." He was not impressed!

"In fact the jurors sent a note to the judge presiding, requesting a definition of "beyond reasonable doubt." He was not impressed!"

I don't see why. It shows their willingness to accurately understand the terminology before condemning a person to imprisonment. If someone is doubtful about something, then their willingness to decrease their ignorance should be welcomed.

I'm not a big fan of circumstantial evidence.