Cyclist killed at Carlisle - hit by lorry

[Bonefishblues]

AIUI, they have jury selection in the US and from where I'm sitting it doesn't seem to achieve much.

Both parties' objectives in the US seem to be met by there being a representative Jury.

[Oldjohnw]

And it would not be justice if a jury was preselected on the basis of their hobbies, interests or political or environmental beliefs.

But they should have been! The prospective panel of jurors should have been asked questions such as : Do you ride a bike, if not, what is your attitude towards cyclists on the road? It is right that biases should be explored otherwise it cannot be a fair examination of the charges and the prospective preconception of the result.

There are people who think that automatically cyclists are saints and motorists are murderers.

[Tiggertoo]

There are people who think that automatically cyclists are saints and motorists are murderers.

Therefore, one needs to ask the question of a prospective jurors, which are you?

[Bonefishblues]

There are people who think that automatically cyclists are saints and motorists are murderers.

Therefore, one needs to ask the question of a prospective jurors, which are you?

How?

[Tiggertoo]

How?

By asking them, of course.

[Oldjohnw]

Jury are randomly selected, not narrowed down to suit a particular constituency. We don’t select people who might be more or less favourably disposed to or antagonistic towards either victim or defendant.

On the basis suggested by some we should have all women juries for women or black people for black people or white collar workers or architects or members of the medical profession as the case may be.

[thirdcrank]

The court process needs jurors to decide guilt by considering only the evidence they have heard in court, within the framework of the law as explained by the judge, but they can use their experience of life to do that. What constitutes dangerous driving has been decided by a top judge to be something that can be left to a jury and AIUI, that decision was what led to the revised definition of the offence in the RTA 1988.

[Mistik-ka]

AIUI, they have jury selection in the US and from where I'm sitting it doesn't seem to achieve much.

Here in Canada the law was recently changed to eliminate peremptory challenges (prospective jurors rejected by defence or prosecution without giving a reason) after a white man was found not guilty of murdering an Indigenous man in a jury verdict which many —including me— found inexplicable. The defence had challenged all of the five jury candidates who appeared to be Indigenous.

In that trial https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/ ... ushie-case the defence may have achieved a great deal through jury selection. (Hence an Act of Parliament to change the process.)

[thirdcrank]

The fairly recent reforms to jury membership in E+W had three main elements

• Scrapping defence challenges
  Making almost everybody liable and eligible for jury service
  Scrapping most excusals, which were replaced with limited deferrals

It probably achieved the aim of random selection and I have a sneaky suspicion that the Government hoped that as a lot more people would be obliged to serve on juries and so be more inclined to support the reduction of the right to a jury trial
================================================================

AIUI, they have jury selection in the US and from where I'm sitting it doesn't seem to achieve much.

Here in Canada the law was recently changed to eliminate peremptory challenges (prospective jurors rejected by defence or prosecution without giving a reason) after a white man was found not guilty of murdering an Indigenous man in a jury verdict which many —including me— found inexplicable. The defence had challenged all of the five jury candidates who appeared to be Indigenous.

In that trial https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/ ... ushie-case the defence may have achieved a great deal through jury selection. (Hence an Act of Parliament to change the process.)

The advocates for jury trial traditionally take the line that one innocent defendant being convicted is worse than 50 (?) guilty going free. That may well have been so in the days of capital punishment, but in the modern era, it's not much of a recommendation for jury trial