Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across. One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!
My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”
As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process. There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.
I don't know about a juror falling asleep, but for me, the issue with the jury is that the decision was only by super-majority. I don't like majority jury decisions, a reform brought in during the 1960s, I believe. I think if a case is put to a jury, the decision to convict should be unanimous.
I think the decision to allow super-majority verdicts was the first nail in the coffin of juries.
In my view, the Bamber case can be seen as part of a gradual decline in English due process. Not that I think Bamber is innocent, and I do think mass murder and child murder are deplorable actions, but if you can't prove a case against somebody, then you have to accept that the defendant must be acquitted, and then resort to other remedies, such as a civil action. A fair system can't really work any other way.
Due process can be likened to a 'fire wall'. It does mean we have to let horrible people go free, but it also means that the chances of innocent people being locked up are minimised. The latter is a much greater evil than the former, and if it is becomes routine/commonplace, we end up in arguments like this and the public (or at least, those who are bothered) start to lose confidence in justice. How do we know we've got the right person? If you even have to ask that question, there's something wrong. Of course, the other side of it is that a fairer system means errors of impunity become common. It's not a perfect world. But maybe if it was easier to gain an acquittal, the police would then improve their techniques? To an extent, that is exactly what has happened.
On the mental capacity question, obviously jurors must be
compos mentis, but I assume you mean that jurors should have a certain level of intelligence. I agree that jurors should be at least of average intelligence, but I wouldn't go along with the idea that we need high IQ/super-educated juries. I think all jurors, whatever the intelligence level, are susceptible to biases and prejudices. A high IQ juror will make errors, and may also lack common sense. Everybody has their own prejudices, especially about how people should behave. A high IQ juror has the same weaknesses that you see in systems that rely on bench trials, in that there is a lack of understanding towards the actions and experiences of somebody of significantly lower cognitive ability or different lifestyles/experiences. This is exacerbated if the life experience of the high IQ person is narrow. The same of course could apply the other way. A lower IQ person may lack common-sense or have narrow experience, etc. The solution is to select at random, subject to basic pre-qualifications, knowing that this brings some balance to the panel.
I think one of the reasons we have juries is because they bring common sense and life experience to the table. One juror might say: 'Why did he do it that way? That makes no sense!' Another juror may then pipe up: 'No, it does make sense. I've been in the same situation....', etc.
