аЯрЁБс>ўџ 13ўџџџ0џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС#` №П bjbjЁЁ .,УУџџџџџџЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄИММММаИ$ Ж№№№№№№№№Ѓ Ѕ Ѕ Ѕ Ѕ Ѕ Ѕ $к hB:Щ ЄС №№С С Щ ЄЄ№№о ? ? ? С Є№Є№Ѓ ? С Ѓ ? ? ЄЄ? №ф №ѕIŸ„ёЧМЫ .? Ѓ є 0$ ? |љ <|? |Є? d№vf T? К Dў У№№№Щ Щ 5 №№№$ С С С С ИИИМИИИМИИИЄЄЄЄЄЄџџџџ Juries: Are they fit for purpose? By Kevin Donaldson Juries have existed in England since the time of Henry 11 but, until 1215, were merely local worthies advising about civil disputes, mainly to do with land use. Criminal trials at this time were decided by ordeals presided over by members of the clergy. In 1215 the Pope, acting on the advice of the Lateran Council, banned clergy from taking part in these trials and the sworn jury was born. The magical presumption that the ordeal could divine the truth was transferred to the jury and there it has stayed. Changes and qualifications to the jury system in the eight centuries since have not challenged the fundamental presumption that a group of normal people could apply their common sense and experience of life to determine whether someone was guilty. Governments have often wanted to tinker with the system or to exclude certain kinds of trails, always with the intention of securing convictions where a jury might acquit and never the other way round. Usually the Judiciary has resisted such incursions into its domain. The current example of this is the Blair government’s determination to take complex fraud out of the jury system and the House of Lords determination to keep it in! Former Home Secretary John Reid threatened to force the measure through, using the Parliament Act in the next session. (It is not known whether Gordon Brown will maintain this stance). The jury system, founded in magical thinking, in a single society with, perhaps a few dozen criminal laws, continues today, unchanged in its essentials. There is enormous resistance to any questioning of the ability of ‘the jury’ (philosophers note the Platonic form!) to determine guilt or innocence. Effectively the jury system is protected from challenge, despite there being good reasons for doubting its efficacy or fairness. Here are a few heretical theses: When the word of the accused contradicts that of the accuser and there is not other corroboration available, it is irrational to expect juries to decide who is telling the truth. Objective studies of the ability of people to discern lying and truth-telling show that, when relying upon observed demeanour, rather than forensic or direct witness evidence, people are, on average, correct with no greater frequency than chance. (Sutherland 1990). Even if each juror was in a separate box and reached his or her verdict independently of the others, this would still be no better than chance. The fact that the jury members actually make a joint decision makes the irrationality not less but greater. Numerous studies of group decision-making have demonstrated a phenomenon known as the Risky Shift or Groupthink. This means that the group as a whole is likely to make a more extreme or radical decision than would be made by an individual member. This seems to be because any sense of individual responsibility for the outcome is diluted. Individuals are enabled to suppress doubts and go along with the majority. Alternatively, perhaps, the majority go along with the most apparently authoritative member. In Britain protection of the jury from influences other than the evidence presented in court is such that juries are unaccountable. If juries were obliged to state their reasons for each verdict it seems likely, intuitively, that many decisions would be different – especially if these reasons could be used as grounds for appeal, (by either prosecution or defence). In Britain, juries are so protected from influence that there is no legal way of studying how they actually behave. Rumours abound of laziness, carelessness and sheer dottiness but there is no way of checking. Intuitively, it seems unlikely that all members behave as impeccably as they should with respect to not discussing the case in subgroups or with spouses and others. In contrast with the origins and traditions of the jury system, the gulf between the life experience of jurors and the matters that they are required to judge has grown exponentially. The claim that jury members can simply apply ‘common sense’ to their task has become, in many cases, nonsense. Only in complex fraud cases is there any official acknowledgement that juries are being stretched beyond their zones of competence. And yet the issues involved in many other kinds of prosecutions are likely to be beyond the experience and, therefore, the competence of juries. In my opinion, this clearly applies to ‘historical’ abuse allegations relating to residential care homes. The historical context in which these cases are set can be as far, psychologically, from the average jury as, say, the cultural norms of pre-war Britain. Although we cannot know how a given jury has reached its verdicts it is clear, on logical grounds, that, in cases of alleged historical abuse they cannot be applying the principle of ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’. We cannot ask a jury to explain its decisions but given what has been placed before them we can make some intelligent guesses as to how they have reached a given verdict of guilty. (Not guilty is, logically, less easy to guess at). They can give weight to the fact that there are several accusers against a single defendant and they can assess the honesty or otherwise of each from their demeanour. From the first item the jury could infer that they would not all be making (similar) allegations if there were no truth in them. But could such a judgement be made with certainty? Logically, it could not. We know (though juries may not) that complainants are actively recruited by no-win-no-fee lawyers, advertising in prisons, newspapers and the like. We know that complainants are recruited by police in ‘trawling’ operations that are at least as likely to attract compensation seekers as genuine victims. Conclusion Except where there is compelling forensic evidence or truly independent and direct witness evidence, the jury is an unsafe method of determining guilt or innocence. In particular, the jury is NOT competent to judge truthfulness from the demeanour of witnesses or of the accused. Reference: Stuart Sutherland : “Irrationality” "66 7 / 0 H g   Ё *-‡ˆ]_v'QRЧ1kŠопф!U\4OoЗИЅЎЏАќ=f˜ЁЖщы1:CFeЌЎђъпъпдпЩпдпЩпЩпЩпНпЩпНпЩпЩпЩпЩпЩпВЩВЇВœВЩВœВЩВЩœВЩВœ‘ВœВœhј|бhѓ%—CJaJhј|бh 4CJaJhј|бh"3ЄCJaJhј|бh~`LCJaJhј|бh\GJ5CJaJhј|бhPtbCJaJhј|бhCJaJhј|бh\GJCJaJhј|бCJaJhј|бhј|б5>*CJaJ9"566 7 / 0   Ё uv)*ЦЧ3434ИЙЄЅGHdїїїђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђ№№№№№№№№№gd\GJ$a$gdј|б ўЎW_ƒ†Ѕўџ4Plm=Zcde67"Y^ij78ЩЪЫж9<  ѕъпъпъдъпъдъдъѕъЩъЩОпОпОпОЩГЇГœГ‘hј|бhXЈCJaJhј|бhxJgCJaJhј|бh\GJ>*CJaJhј|бh\GJCJaJhј|бhj—CJaJhј|бhЕjCJaJhј|бhPtbCJaJhј|бhѓ%—CJaJhј|бhГ_бCJaJhј|бh~`LCJaJ!de78!"ЪЫжюя  §§§§§§§§§§§§ ,1hА‚. АЦA!А"А# $ %ААФАФ Ф†œ@@ёџ@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRiѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (kєџС(No List,џџџџ"5667/0 Ёuv)*Ц Ч 3 4 3 4 И Й Є Ѕ GHde78!"ЪЫжюя!˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€Ў d  џџмЖ[œЙЈнЖ[tќЇоЖ[$јЇпЖ[DbІрЖ[мqЈсЖ[ФетЖ[єиуЖ[дlІMM7 7 Ј Ј [[!TT> > Џ Џ bb!9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€B*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€ рѓ;!56*  !33667/0gg Ё*-‡ˆ]_QRŠ Š о п    ! U \ 4 4 O P o o Џ А KLffЁЁщыўџlmYZж!!хv4 4D3(L;\GJ~`LPtbѕgxJgЕjѓ%—j—"3ЄXЈф9ГГ_бј|бџ@€550#p55@@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"ёˆ№аhИ†=ЙІ+™† +™† +!№ ДД242ƒ№HX)№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ"3Є2џџNinaNinaўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0h˜ЄАРЬиш ј $ 0 <HPX`фNinaNormalNina16Microsoft Office Word@ТЬ@’Бk9еЧ@ТЊ€„ёЧ™†ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ш hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М Щф+ Ф  Title ўџџџўџџџ!"#$%&'ўџџџ)*+,-./ўџџџ§џџџ2ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFамUŸ„ёЧ4€1Tableџџџџџџџџ|WordDocumentџџџџџџџџ.,SummaryInformation(џџџџ DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ(CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq