Informal Poll: Trial by Jury

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
My draft proposal reintroduces jury trials, but makes jury selection after deliberations to avoid jury disappearance problems. I think this improves the quality of judicial decision-making without slowing things down. Yes? No?
 
I see that someone apparently voted only for a jury which sits through the trial, voting against a jury selected after deliberations are completed.

I wonder why someone would vote that way.
 
In the current draft, there are three judges on rotation, and they act as an appeals court.

But we *can* get rid of that.
 
Can you explain what value a jury is "after" deliberations?

I could see jury selection as the last step for starting the trial and the evidence and testimony is fully prepared for posting at one time for the jury to view when they are chosen.

As to the judges, we really need a fourth justice. Then one justice presides over a trial and the other three are the appellate review panel for that case. Roles would rotate.

So I'm not able to make a selection yet, I need to see more explanation.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Can you explain what value a jury is "after" deliberations?

I could see jury selection as the last step for starting the trial and the evidence and testimony is fully prepared for posting at one time for the jury to view when they are chosen.

As to the judges, we really need a fourth justice. Then one justice presides over a trial and the other three are the appellate review panel for that case. Roles would rotate.

So I'm not able to make a selection yet, I need to see more explanation.
Click to expand...
I would read my proposed Judicial Procedure Chapter of the proposed legal code; it contains some new law to cover this.

Proposed Legal Code:
20. Once discovery ends a period of time for deliberations on the evidence and law will begin.
21. In no case will the period for deliberations exceed 14 days.
22. During discovery and deliberations, either side may make objections or requests at any time publicly and on the forum.
23. Once deliberations are over, the Court will publish the official court record of discovery and deliberations and the Court's advice on the law to the Jury, and separately an alphabetized list of all voters in the last election who are eligible voters at that time, within 24 hours.
24. The Court will then immediately enter the posted list into http://www.random.org/lists/?mode=advanced, selecting "Use pre-generated randomization based on persistent identifier" and specifying an identifier: composed of "tnp," the year, the commonly used three letter abbreviation for the month, and two digits representing the day of the month, following by a two digit number specifying which case in chronological order from that day the jury selection is for all lowercase and separated by dashes; for example "tnp-2011-nov-29-01" if one were holding one jury selection November 29th, 2011.
25. The Court will then immediately publish the identifier used and the random sequence of voters obtained.
26. The Court will notify the first five voters from the random sequence that they are jurors, and the next five that they are backup Jurors, providing them with the published record.
27. The Jurors and backup Jurors will have 72 hours to respond, or be penalized with disenfranchisement for a period of time at the discretion of the Court, specified in the above notification.
28. The Court will select responding Jurors in the order of the random sequence.
29. Should the Court need more jurors, it will notify a further five voters from the random sequence, also giving them 72 hours to respond, repeating the process until there are 5 active Jurors.
30. The complete Jury will have 72 hours to come to a conclusion on the conclusion of the last needed jury notification period.
31. The Jury may unanimously convict or acquit.
32. Otherwise, the Jury will be declared a hung jury, and the case may be tried again.
Click to expand...
 
I think many of us would take the word "deliberation" as something a jury does after they are selected and after they are presented with the evidence and testimony. Can we come up with a different label to describe that phase?

And I still think the evidence shouldn't be made public until the jury is seated; as long as all of it is ready for posting from both sides at the same time.

That is the process the current rules of evidence contemplated, and I think the current trial would have been completed long ago had it been followed.
 
Perhaps instead of "Deliberations" I should say "Arguments"?

20. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin.
21. In no case will the period for arguments exceed 14 days.
22. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests at any time publicly and on the forum.
23. Once arguments are over, the Court will publish the official court record of discovery and arguments and the Court’s advice on the law to the Jury, and separately an alphabetized list of all voters in the last election who are eligible voters at that time, within 24 hours.
24. The Court will then immediately enter the posted list into http://www.random.org/lists/?mode=advanced, selecting “Use pre-generated randomization based on persistent identifier” and specifying an identifier: composed of “tnp,” the year, the commonly used three letter abbreviation for the month, and two digits representing the day of the month, following by a two digit number specifying which case in chronological order from that day the jury selection is for all lowercase and separated by dashes; for example “tnp-2011-nov-29-01” if one were holding one jury selection November 29th, 2011.
25. The Court will then immediately publish the identifier used and the random sequence of voters obtained.
26. The Court will notify the first five voters from the random sequence that they are jurors, and the next five that they are backup Jurors, providing them with the published record.
27. The Jurors and backup Jurors will have 72 hours to respond, or be penalized with disenfranchisement for a period of time at the discretion of the Court, specified in the above notification.
28. The Court will select responding Jurors in the order of the random sequence.
29. Should the Court need more jurors, it will notify a further five voters from the random sequence, also giving them 72 hours to respond, repeating the process until there are 5 active Jurors.
30. The complete Jury will have 72 hours to deliberate on the conclusion of the last needed jury notification period.
31. The Jury may unanimously convict or acquit.
32. Otherwise, the Jury will be declared a hung jury, and the case may be tried again.
Click to expand...
 
I have issue with this. Primarily on trying to see A. how many jurors are needed and B. Trying to see how many can remain absolutely 100% impartial and unbiased. There are some who may have strong attitudes about some people in this region, and they may not always think logically...
 
Govindia:
I have issue with this. Primarily on trying to see A. how many jurors are needed and B. Trying to see how many can remain absolutely 100% impartial and unbiased. There are some who may have strong attitudes about some people in this region, and they may not always think logically...
Click to expand...
Well in the drafted procedure a jury requires unanimity to convict...
 
Eluvatar:
Govindia:
I have issue with this. Primarily on trying to see A. how many jurors are needed and B. Trying to see how many can remain absolutely 100% impartial and unbiased. There are some who may have strong attitudes about some people in this region, and they may not always think logically...
Click to expand...
Well in the drafted procedure a jury requires unanimity to convict...
Click to expand...
It's still a bias issue.
 
Some of this looks like it came from the procedure for jury trials in the last Constitution, especially the randomizer. (I recognize the URL.)
The problem in the past was getting the jury in place, and keeping their attention while the evidence is presented. If we go with the approach currently in the Court Rules of Evidence so as to speed up the presentment of all evidence of testimony, and if there can be some way to speed up jury selection, then it might be possible to come up with a system where a trial can be completed within three weeks of charges being filed by the prosecutor. (I still get steamed as to how a process that clearly lays out a fast track trial procedure especially with pre-trial recordation of testimony keeps getting sidetracked.)
I'm not comfortable with the way the choices are described, so consider my choice to be "other."
 
The issue of having juries or not having juries would be easy enough to deal with if there were strict time standards to have evidence and testimony prepared for trial beforehand. The Court that started the JAL trial ignored its own rules of evidence and procedure which very clearly set out what had to be done to prepare evidence and testimony transcripts for a trial, and the time element in which it had to be done. The failure of the Court to follow its own rules was the cause of that debacle nothing more and nothing less.
Whether we have juries or not, this time frame issue needs to be settled. and settled in a way that offers no escape clause to allow the same sort of trial that keeps happening.
 
Nevertheless, I personally believe that a person on trial should have the right to a trial of an impartial jury. The idea of judges determining the outcome of a trial gives me the willies.

The problem I have with Judges deciding the outcome of a jury is that Judges are members of the government, the prosecutor/AG is a member of the government and all are essentially charges with promoting the government's interests. This not only constitutes a conflict of interest but stacks the deck against defendants in all instances.

Since all crimes are essentially crimes against the 'people', then the people should decide guilt or innocence and not government officials.

One of the elements missing in our entire legal system is the presumption of innocence which requires the state to prove beyond a reason of a doubt the guilt of the accused, not the other way around. To have government officials determine guilt or innocence is nothing short of a sham. The state should be required to prove guilt. The defendant should never be required to prove innocence. And that is why the jury system is an absolute requirement if anything resembling justice is to be attained.
 
We have enough trouble with elected judges wandering off mid-trial. A jury would involve more people, more complications and more delay. Unless you could snatch them off the active user list, send them to irc, and hold the trial AT THAT MOMENT, in real time, there is no way it will work.
 
Unless you could snatch them off the active user list, send them to irc, and hold the trial AT THAT MOMENT, in real time, there is no way it will work
Click to expand...

I agree with GBM. This is the only way I can imagine it working. Even then though, it seems impractical.
 
Great Bights Mum:
We have enough trouble with elected judges wandering off mid-trial. A jury would involve more people, more complications and more delay. Unless you could snatch them off the active user list, send them to irc, and hold the trial AT THAT MOMENT, in real time, there is no way it will work.
Click to expand...
Woah!

Grabbing a jury off of the list of users logged in in the last 3 days at the conclusion of Discovery... there's an idea! :tb2:
 
The principle is lovely, but the reality of the constraints on us operating with in NS rather than the real world make jury trials wholly impractical. As every previous attempt to use them would suggest.

Roman - justices are elected independently, so they are not part of the "government" in the same way as they are in RL when they are appointed/confirmed by the other branches of government.
 
We have elected judges who are supposed to be impartial (although, I admit that having been away for so long I am not best placed to judge the truth in that). A jury system requires a lot of 'common people' with no affiliation to the accused to try and make an impartial decision and we simply don't have the numbers of motivated players to take part in that.

We have an appeals procedure, and I think that we are all largely fair actors in this game. If things became totally unfair, we know what happens in TNP *puts his black beret on and sets some C4 off*
 
Gonna say no jury, just because it's another group of individuals that we're expecting to be active throughout the trial. Unless we mandate that trials be shortened to some time period, I'd say no jury.
 
I like the idea of a jury trial, but I don't see how it can be practically done right now due to technological and participation issues.
 
Easy way to do trials by jury. You have the prosecution present their case(2 days), you have the defense present their case (2 days), you permit two rebuttals and all within a specific set period of time (2 days for each rebuttal). As Elu points out, you then call a jury. The jury then has a certain amount of days (2 days) to read the case and make their decision. That way it doesn't have to be held on the spot via IRC. 10 days and the trial is done.
 
Again, that can only work if the testimony (direct and cross-examination) is recorded in advance, and edited to remove matter than is improper evidence, and all of the other evidence is prepared and ready for posting.
As to 2 days for rebuttal? If any is really necessary that isn't developed before trial, one cycle should be enough. If evidence is ready before the formal trial begins, then it really shouldn't be necessary.
 
Juries are supposed to be impartial though and how many ACTIVE members of this forum would be impartial when dealing with any matter actually brought before the court.
 
That is also true. Looking at it logically, given the level of activity at times, it could be construed that judges are essentially 'peers' of the defendant provided there is no conflict of interests, obviously.

How about a panel of three judges to make a decision on any given case. Certainly we can muster that many judges at one time?
 
That is our current arrangement. We just need to ensure it actually happens properly, with one presiding judge and 3 judges to then decide the end result.
 
You could make a requirement that justices on the court maintain a certain amount of activity on the forum during their term.

Better yet - how about a list of reserve justices to step in to act as the tree judge panel should a total of three sitting justices not be available? (Potential reserve justices would be a list of those who have already served as a justice and/or a number volunteers of others).
 
I was referring more to how all three judges at once ended up presiding over the beginning of the JAL trial. That was farcical.
 
That was absurd, wasn't it.

I think it was a procedural failure of the worst order. Since the procedure would appear to allow the courts to wander around in a procedural haze, the whole process of a trial under the current system simply broke down into a farcical comedy - lots of noise and then the sound of crickets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top