Letter regarding Jury Service system changes

[Saffron]

[quote=Snoopyseed,13th March 2005 - 02:50 PM]
Ok then all lets go for broke here.......


[
Questions like "What colour underwear were you wearing?" and "When did you lose your virginity?" to try and discredit our character should be banned.


Questions about a victim's sexual history should be banned.
(Again im not sure if this has changed yet due to my recent house move i cant find all my files)


As with the above a victims health record must not be brought up in court


Using the fact that the vicitim did not fight back to say that it was consensual sex,as a form of defence



The person accused of the crime should not be allowed to use the "I was under the impression she/he consented" defence.



Hi Snoopy

In response to your comments above:

in May last year there were some changes to the legislation covering the above points. The defence solicitor is no longer permitted to ask any questions about the complainants sexual history, nor are they allowed to bring up any health problems. Furthermore the defendant has to prove they took reasonable steps to gain consent.

Elsewhere in this thread I have made my opinions clear about this, so i do not wish to cover old ground. suffice to say that in a case where one person is stating that sex was consensual, and the other is claiming they have been raped, the burden of proof has shifted to the defendant.

Saffron

[val lavender]

Hi All

I have given some thought about the comments made regarding written jury reports and have come up with the following:

Once the jury have finished their group deliberations, those members that are able to use an input terminal to produce a typed report should do so, this would be a two part document, both parts bearing the jurors Id number. The first part would indicate guilty or not guilty and the second also bear the verdict and the reasons for the jurors decision. The first part would be handed to the jury foreman and the second given to the Clerk of The Court.

Those not able to use the input terminal would do exactly the same by dictating their submission to the Court Recorder and handing in the two parts as above.

I feel that this retains the concept of jurors reaching their own conclusions without pressure from other jury members, ensuring that jurors record the reasons for their verdict and allows the production of a uniform report by using resources that are already in the court to reduce the expense and time taken to achieve a justified verdict.


Regards

Val

[val lavender]

Hi Maria, Saffron and Snoops

There were a lot of changes made to the law regarding sexual offences, which came into force in 2004.

The working papers that were produced to substantiate these alterations, and the results of various conferences and seminars, are available fron the Home Office in a two volume document called "Setting The Boubdries".

Copies of this report can be obtained, at no charge, by ringing 0207 273 3443 or 0207 273 2084.

There are numerous other publications produced by the Home Office, several of which are highly relevent to the subjects frequently discussed in these forums. A comprehensive list of available reports can be obtained by ringing the above numbers or can be downloaded from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

All of these reports are free and many of them make very intersting reading. Some can be down loaded from www.homeoffice.gov.rk/rds.


Regards


Val

[Snoopyseed]

Originally posted by val lavender@13th March 2005 - 07:05 PM
Hi Snoopy

thats interesting stuff, I will certainly be posting my response as soon as I have time to digest what you have put forward.

Are you sure that this post is in the right thread, it seems like something that should be in the general forum.
Regards
Val

Quoted post

Hello Val, i do feel it is in the right thread yes, my post had some interesting and valid points about the way trials are conducted and included methods for improving the jury service such as informing any jury before a trial exactly what is involved in the crime as we live in such a varied society different cultures hold different beleifs about different crimes.I also included other things that i feel could also be put forward in the letter such as scrapping the compensation system altogether, afterall there is no point writing a letter about one or two changes when there are MANY changes that could improve things for the entire system.
The points i raised can be debated over and decided upon as to wether or not they should be included , as they can stretch to other crimes as well as rape.
Afterall why limit a letter going to the &#39;Top Dogs&#39; <_< to just one area when if you are going to hand the &#39;people at the top&#39; a letter about positive change why not include several other points about the system as a whole. that way it would save a letter per point, would hold their interest more if presented with a small document full of various (but of course relalistic and to the point) changes and
would save people coming back and saying "Oh yer but what about this and that?" by then it would be too late.
If we are going to go all the way with this why limit ourselves???? lets get everything we want to say down and THEN debate about what we can and cannot include in the letter? I have no intention of being awakward here and thats certainly not what im intedning to do, its juts that many of us are silence for so long.So why not debate here on what we should include to change the system as a whole rather than limit it to one point, especially when other areas of a criminal trial need to be addressed, afterall we may only get ONE CHANCE
So why dont we get together on these boards and thrash out what should go in the letter/document afterall i have included a fax your MP for free link in my above threads so all that would need to be done is when we have finalised what needs to be said write out the document (I dont mind helping if im around) and then we could use that as a template and once posted on this site we could all copy and paste it and then fax it to all of our local MP&#39;s for free
That way word will get round quickly and effectivley.
I faxed my local MP when the rape crisis centres were shut down due to lack of funding and within a few weks i received a fully explainable letter from the house of commons (Complete with gold stamp at top )
Proof that the method does work and with an election coming up........
Snoopy

[Snoopyseed]

Originally posted by Saffron@14th March 2005 - 08:49 AM
the burden of proof has shifted to the defendant.

Saffron

Quoted post

Defense team, not the defendant, and isnt that why they are there? <_<

[diana_holbourn]

Val,

I suspect the punishments you propose for failure to declare a relationship with a juror are too severe to be acceptable to any politician; maybe make it a simple 3 thousand pound fine.

Regarding jurors&#39; reports, I don&#39;t think your proposals would actually take the pressure off jurors, since they&#39;d have had to have come to a verdict among themselves anyway before writing the reports, and if their real verdict conflicted with those of other people and they wrote that down, the jury members would probably simply be asked to reconsider until they all agreed or had reached a majority verdict. Then weak members would probably simply cave in to the pressure put upon them by others.

Also, it might take a while for them all to use the computer terminal in turn. Some jurors might take some time to decide what to say. They would at least have to routinely be instructed to write down their main points on a piece of paper as they were going along, and cross out any they decided they didn&#39;t agree with after all as they were going along, so they could quickly write down their points on the form at the end.

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Snoopyseed@14th March 2005 - 01:22 PM
Defense team, not the defendant, and isnt that why they are there? <_<

Quoted post

Yes, Snoopy, you are quite right, defence team. (usually paid for by legal aid, and therefore rarely at the top of their profession)

But the priniciple of our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" and if the burden of proof is shifted to the defence team, then that most basic principle has gone out of the window. We lose the entire basis of our so-called "justice" system.

[Snoopyseed]

(I know but wanted to let everyone know)

Just to let everyone who is drafting up this letter know that i will be away for a few days (possibly two weeks) but i hope to come on and see how its all going.
Hopefully we can get a good draft up and running that includes lots of points and new ideas to put forward.I shall look forward to reading what has been happening and if i can get to a net cafe i shall do so to see how its all plodding along
Love and Blessings as always
Snoopy

[val lavender]

Hi Snoops

I agree that there are many aspects of our legal system that need updating. There are far too many issues for it to be possible for one document to cover all of them in one go.

The idea of the current letter, is to tackle issues relating to the jury system only, to avoid the final product being too large for readers to take in. While some of your comments are highly valid and must be addressed in the final draft, the abolition of the CICA compensation scheme is a debate all in its own right and should form the basis of another seperate discussion once we have got the first one right.

Do you have any suggestions for the mailing list, together with email addresses, as there have been too few suggestions so far and we need to increase the circulation of this document to improve the chances of any action it is likely to trigger.

I hope you enjoy your holiday. The final draft will not be produced until everyone has had their say, so you should be back before it is sent.



Regards


Val

[Snoopyseed]

Originally posted by val lavender@15th March 2005 - 01:36 AM

Do you have any suggestions for the mailing list, together with email addresses, as there have been too few suggestions so far and we need to increase the circulation of this document to improve the chances of any action it is likely to trigger.

I hope you enjoy your holiday. The final draft will not be produced until everyone has had their say, so you should be back before it is sent.
Regards
Val

Quoted post

Hi Val, my gods i wish it were a holiday&#33;
As for the email circulation thing, we could just have one final copy of the letter all written up, and then posted on this site.Then all people would have to do is copy the letter, and then go the fax your MP for free site and paste it into that and send it.We would all do it individually and depending on where we are in the country a wide variety of MP&#39;s would receive it.
The site lets you know the address and the name of your local MP you see.
This is the easiest way i can think of.
Your right by the way about the compensation system being a whole different topic, but something we could focus on in the future i guess
Blessings for now
Snoopy

[littlemoo]

Originally posted by val lavender+14th March 2005 - 08:56 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(val lavender &#064; 14th March 2005 - 08:56 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hi All

Once the jury have finished their group deliberations, those members that are able to use an input terminal to produce a typed report should do so, this would be a two part document, both parts bearing the jurors Id number. The first part would indicate guilty or not guilty and the second also bear the verdict and the reasons for the jurors decision. The first part would be handed to the jury foreman and the second given to the Clerk of The Court.

Val

Quoted post

[/b]

Why would there have to be a computer involved at all. Why not have a pre-printed form that the jurors, after discussion, could go and privately fill in their verdict and reasoning. If they use biro it cannot be easily changed, if that is what you are worried about.
I agree with you idea of a written verdict from each juror, I am just beeing a bit cynical and considering that the people reading this letter are not going to want to spend money on computers if they don&#39;t have to.


<!--QuoteBegin-diana_holbourn@14th March 2005 - 01:45 PM

Regarding jurors&#39; reports, I don&#39;t think your proposals would actually take the pressure off jurors, since they&#39;d have had to have come to a verdict among themselves anyway before writing the reports,

[snapback]1086[/snapback]

[/quote]

Why??? I don&#39;t understand
At the moment (as I understand) the jurors have to discuss among themselves until a verdict is reached that everyone is happy with.
What Val is suggesting is that after discussion, each juror privately, on their own, writes their verdict and reasoning behind it, and the final decision - innocent or guilty, depends on the written majority.

In their discussions, the jurors may not all agree and it will take the pressure off those who are too quiet to argue as much as the rest. At the moment, I&#39;m sure at least in part, it is the louder members of the jury who get their verdict as much as the majority.

As a quiet person who likes to think though an argument, I would much rather write down my final decision than have to vocalise it.

~Jo

P.s. Val - i&#39;ll do some polls whenever you are ready, If you still think that&#39;s a good idea.

[diana_holbourn]

Well, I suppose it could take the pressure off jury members, but if everyone is supposed to have come to an agreement before they start writing, quieter members might feel under pressure not to go against the grain if they disagree with anything. And if they do, and the verdict isn&#39;t the convincing majority verdict envisaged, the jury will just have to reconsider, and the quieter members will have to face up to the wrath of the more dominant ones who have been made to look stupid because they&#39;d brought the deliberations to a close thinking they were all in agreement.

And if politicians envisage the possibility that many verdicts may be delayed because jurors express contrary views to the majority on their papers which means they have to go back and reconsider again till they all agree, they probably won&#39;t accept the proposal. There&#39;s probably a way around these things. We&#39;ll just have to think of it.

[littlemoo]

Perhaps I didn&#39;t explain myself very well in my last post.

Originally posted by diana_holbourn@15th March 2005 - 07:11 PM
Well, I suppose it could take the pressure off jury members, but if everyone is supposed to have come to an agreement before they start writing,

Quoted post

Why would they need to?
If everyone can write their conclusions down, when the jurors are happy with their discussion - (yes, i believe discussion is important), the jurors go away and write down (vote) their viewpoint.
These are taken away and the "innocent" and "guilty" decisions are added up and a verdict is reached.
No one need ever know who decided each way.
Therefore, while the quiet people may not contribute much to the discussion, and therefore may not shre their ideas with everyone else, (which is a pity in itself but you can&#39;t force people to talk) at least in the end they can make up their own mind based on their conclusions and what is dicussed.
~Jo

[littlemoo]

Originally posted by Snoopyseed@15th March 2005 - 03:13 PM

As for the email circulation thing, we could just have one final copy of the letter all written up, and then posted on this site.Then all people would have to do is copy the letter, and then go the fax your MP for free site and paste it into that and send it. We would all do it individually and depending on where we are in the country a wide variety of MP&#39;s would receive it.
The site lets you know the address and the name of your local MP you see.
Snoopy

Quoted post

Do MP&#39;s have to reply to a faxed letter? I know they have to reply to a written and posted one from someone in their own constituency.
~Jo

[diana_holbourn]

How would jururs know when to finish their discussion if a verdict wasn&#39;t reached?

So you&#39;re suggesting that the final verdict is come to not in the jury room but by some clerk of the court who weighs up all the jurors&#39; thoughts and verdicts and comes to a decision based on those? What if there isn&#39;t a majority verdict? What if opinions are so mixed that they have to tell the jury to reconsider? This could happen more than once per case. And it might happen in many cases. I think the jury would have to be fairly sure they were in agreement before writing anything down, if there wasn&#39;t a danger of it becoming a bureaucratic nightmare.

Regarding MP&#39;s having to write back to people, I&#39;ve heard they can get around that by simply sending a standard letter saying something like, "Thank you for your letter. The matter may be considered." Then you never hear from them again. Or do they have to do more?