I love the jury system
This week I’ve been on jury service. I thought about seeking an exemption but I thought, hey I should do it, we all should do it unless there is something we really really really can’t get out of. And I can still get work done outside of jury time.
I don’t want to comment on the details of the case I’ve been on. But I can say that I LOVE the jury system - 12 regular people making judgement over their fellow citizens - now THAT is democracy. We took our job seriously and did the best we possibly could to give the right verdict. The facilities were OK, just - though the jury room was really tiny and pretty stuffy. Our case was four days but if it was more I think we would’ve gone stir crazy in such a small space. The judge, court staff and lawyers were really good at explaining the process to us.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Russ
I find it interesting that you have posted this Russ as it is something that I often think about.
Recently I sat through a case that lasted the better part of the week, the scary thing about it was that some of the people I was on the jury with were just not smart enough to be deciding the future of this individual.
After hearing all the evidence it was obvious to most what the verdict should be yet two of my fellow jurors had obviously not taken in anything at all from the weeks proceedings, another one arrived at her verdict solely on the base of the mans race.
I know there are many faults with the jury system yet I cannot think of an alternative that is acceptable, one change I would make immediately is compulsory IQ tests for all potential jurors.
If jurors are forced to sit in tiny rooms with people who are not capable of weighing up all the evidence then you run the very real risk of arriving at the wrong verdict.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Funnily enough, a researcher I spoke with recently was dead set against the English-style jury system — too adversarial, she said. She recommended instead the French system, where the powers of the jury are severely restricted, and the onus on the judge is far greater.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I agree with Russel.
The system works well. The experience of being on a jury gives one confidence in the good sense and basic decency of “the average Kiwi”.
Why am I not surprised that big bruv has elitist ideas about which citizens should serve on a jury?
February 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
eredwen
Ha ha, thats funny, because I want the justice system to get the right result I am elitist.
You don’t care if innocent people go to prison as long as we don’t offend any potential jurors, you are quite happy to see the guilty go free because the jury were not capable of understanding what had been said in court, that is far more important in your eyes than offending a potential juror.
Come on Eredwen, you of all people are above name calling, it really is beneath you.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I don’t know that much about the jury system here in godzone. Is it possible for a single intractable juror to hang a jury? It seems to me that the situation big bruv described is real enough, and while insisting on IQ tests comes with problems of its own, expecting all jurors to be right there with, say, the concept of reasonable doubt, may be too idealistic.
Who is this “average Kiwi” anyway?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Yeah, it’s gotta be unanimous whether it’s guilty or not guilty.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
That’s kinda what I thought. Now, granted most Kiwis have an awful lot of good sense, but all it takes it takes is one wanker in a thousand trials …
Still, they’d have to get past the choosing of the jury stage. Can’t remember what that’s called, but I’m pretty certain that the state and the defence have a limited number of unconditional “pass” cards they can use to refuse jurors they get a funny feeling about.
Yet, it’s still possible a ’stealth’ juror could get through and decide out of pique or whatever to make things very awkward.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
plum asks: Who is this “average Kiwi�,
The “average Kiwi” who is called for Jury Service, is the average Kiwi who enrols on the Electoral Roll to vote. This same “average Kiwi” has a driver’s licence, a job, probably a mortgage and brings up children …
More people than are needed are called for each jury and the lawyers for the prosecution and for the defence can question and challenge those potential jurors that they regard as unsuitable, and thus have them removed.
The system works well most of the time, and there is redress when it does not.
From inside knowledge, I have faith in our legal system and in our legal profession. They will tell us if/when they need our help to fix things, and how they should be fixed.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
eredwen Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
The system works well most of the time, and there is redress when it does not.
—————–
Is this the Repeal section59 debate?
jh
February 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Good on you Russel for not using your political influence to get an exemption. You have just bought another wee bit of credibility with me!
I think the jury system we have works reasonably well, although the recent kerfuffle with Miss Alice and the Berrymans raises a few questions.
I think we need to rethink the whole prison system. Maybe all very young offenders (~20) could be sentenced to working (at min wage or better) instead of jail. Something like road/rail/DOC work etc.
Then they could be given the option of continuing with working/education/whatever. Obviously this wouldn’t work for everyone, but hell if we have to pay $50k for them in prison, why not get them out there doing useful work.
There is a bit of a crisis in youth offending at the mo, it seems.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
uk kiwi
“I think we need to rethink the whole prison system. Maybe all very young offenders (~20) could be sentenced to working (at min wage or better) instead of jail. Something like road/rail/DOC work etc.”
Sorry but thats just nuts, we need to be sending a very strong message to you offenders that prison is not an option.
If you must make them work then they should be doing it for nothing, personally the only work i would give them is breaking rocks.
You are right when you say there is a crisis, and the crisis is because youth offenders know (by and large) that they can get away with it, a lack of discipline and youth is always a dangerous mixture.
Repealing section 59 is only going to make this worse.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
big bruv: break rocks as punishment? Sorry, but that is nuts. The message you’d send would be one of constant humiliation. Which is of course bound to make people become law-abiding citizens in the society that has just spent six months telling them they’re worthless.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
G’wan, tell me I’m a bleeding heart liberal. You know you want to.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Maybe the message they would get is that crime brings consequences. What message do they get from our weak system now: “I can get away with it!”?? We have to see things from the angle of the perpetrator but today, many see them as victims of society. People have to learn where the buck stops.
jh
February 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Plum
They are worthless, why not direct that good nature of yours into helping the victims…or does that mot matter?
I suppose we should spend thousands finding out why they are criminals, no doubt it would be because they did not receive enough in the way of unemployment benefits from the government or perhaps it is a legacy of market rents in the 90’s.
Failing that the other sure fire excuse which always gets the liberals running is to claim you are a criminal because of the way the white man stole your culture 100 years ago.
Plum I want more money and resources spent on the victims not the criminals, personally I would introduce a three strikes and out policy, I am not talking about banging up those who make one mistake, hell even I did that but we cannot take a soft line with repeat offenders.
And no, I have no desire at all to call you names, my task here is to educate you not abuse you.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Sorry about my last post — I was teasing (bit cheeky I know).
I certainly don’t think victims are unimportant, which is why I’m right behind things restorative justice and family group conferences and supported bail scheme (especially for the young offenders; if we can change their ways and show them that their actions have very real consequences, then we can help nip further offending in the butt).
I think to a certain extent we’re talking about different types of offenders here. I have in mind offenders who can be turned round, to make something of themselves and be useful to society. You appear to have in mind the headline-grabbing incorrigible recidivists: the worst of the bunch. I’m certainly not going to deny they exist and that the system may be gamed for them. The police invariably know who’s who, and they’ve been more involved recently in innovative justice system outcomes — after all, nothing is more dispiriting than locking the same guy up multiple times when he could have been straight years ago.
However, I’m not going to lump in for a one size fits all criminal justice system.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Wow! Now hear this everyone!!
Big bruv says:
“And no, I have no desire at all to call you names, my task here is to educate you not abuse you.”
February 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Oops, apologies for many typos. Typing and cab sav do not mix.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Plum
Family group conferences do not work in the cast majority of cases.
Most of those who are made to attend a family group conference come from such a dysfunctional background that they see this as nothing more than a joke.
I do agree with you that there are two groups, one is a group that (usually young men) who make a mistake and find themselves in front of the court, as I said I make one mistake and was in that situation, what is needed here is a very stern warning and to be told that if you appear again the consequences will be dire, sadly this does not happen now.
I would give them two chances to be turned around but thats it, and by chances i do not mean they should be drowned in a sea of well meaning social workers, they should be made to see that they have an option, a life as a law abiding member of society or life behind bars, a third time and you are going away for a very long time,
The other group you correctly identify as the hard core recidivist criminal, these people I would not waste my time or money on, build a tough and harsh prison, lock them up and throw away the key.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
eredwen
Tough day huh?
February 16th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“Family group conferences do not work in the vast majority of cases”
I would question where you get that statistic. The literature I’ve read points to the opposite conclusion. Of course FGCs aren’t going to lead to good outcomes for some youths, but they help divert most young offenders from jail time. And you probably know that spending time in jail tends to lead to more time in jail.
Actually, I’m not sure how seriously to take your comments, big bruv, in light of your final paragraph about throwing away the key, and your previous comment to the extent that criminals are “worthless”. You say you’re concerned for the victims, and this is well and good, but please don’t mistake revenge for a positive criminal justice outcome. The more “revenge” gets meted out, the bigger and more numerous our prisons will need to be. In sum, I doubt your approach to this issue is at all serious rather than knee-jerk.
But have a good night!
February 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Plum
Deadly serious, I am sick and tired of the rising crime rate in New Zealand and I am sick and tired of liberals making excuses for these people.
Please not that I advocate this for recidivist criminals, we have to face the facts that these people have no intention of being rehabilitated and no amount of good intention is going to change that.
You can take my comments anyway you like Plum as that is your right, but equally i have the right to push for a tougher justice system where we do not pander to criminals or waste time and money trying to rehabilitate them, prison should be seen as punishment, the loony liberal idea that you can change people is laughable.
I wish you a good evening as well, enjoy the wine, i hope it is NZ made wine.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Yet another definative statement from BB with no references, sigh, no hope of evidence-based decision making from you.
anyways, GP policy - for restorative justice - does put the victims first, as well as offering a better chance of remorse and rehabilitation from the offender than imprisonment.
the reason that there is such a high rate of reoffending is because of imprisonment, and the policies that you decry as loony liberal are the one thing that is likely to improve crime rates
February 16th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Stuey
If you really believe that the victim of a house burglary wants remorse from the scum that broke in then you are extremely misguided.
All that post shows it that you personally lean toward the criminal rather than the victim, lets look at your argument (not supported by a shred of evidence I must add)
Restorative justice according to you offers a better chance at ‘rehabilitating the criminal” this is exactly what I mean, why are you supporting a system that put the criminals needs in front of the victim?, and please…a few crocodile tears is not going to fool anybody.
The reason we have such a high rate of re offending is because of our prison system that much we agree on, the places are far to soft, make them a place to fear instead of a place where there is underfloor heating and free medical and dental care, again you show more concern for those who are in prison than those who are the victims of crime.
Stuey I grew up around a lot of criminals, it might be good for you to learn that they know the system inside out, they know how to “play” the liberal left like a piano, while many from the left are wringing their hands at the injustice of the system they are laughing at them behind their backs.
There is a blindingly simple answer to all of this, make them personally responsible for their actions, a little bit of personal responsibility goes a long long way.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
yes I absolutely agree offenders need to develop personal responsibility, and restorative justice offers more chance of that than simple punitive incarceration which only reinforces their current behaviours.
you’re right, I didn’t offer any evidence, I don’t know what happened, I thought I had linked to the wikipedia article on restorative justice but it seems I didn’t. I’m sorry I don’t have the time to look for any more references than that. Well actually here’s one, a good introductory video from the Greens site:
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other7635.html
Restorative justice does not put the offender before the victim, it gives the victim a major role in the process and they may receive some type of restitution from the offender - it involves getting together those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships, and it gives the victim a chance to say what they think should happen as a consequence of the offending.
Good quote from the video:
I support restorative justice because it is tougher for the offender to learn how their actions have affected others than it is for them to simply do time.
Restorative justice reduces offending, and gives greater victim satisfaction than retributive justice.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
and a recent news story from the BBC about a Cambridge University study, not that I expect you to make an evidence-based decision on anything, BB, its all anecdote and “self-evident truths” from you eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6330657.stm
February 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Some thoughts on reading through the above …
I think we have almost enough people on this thread who would be willing to form a machine-gun-toting firing squad …
Now THAT would save a lot of hard earned tax payers money. (You might be able to get these offenders to dig their own graves first. That would save even more hard earned money.)
Perhaps it would be a better idea to sterilize all these “no hopers” at birth … now THAT should get rid of the whole problem in one generation!
…. except perhaps “white collar crime”(?)
February 17th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Russel, good on you for attending jury service when called.
Did your position as a Green Party Leader cause any concern in the jury selection process? I presume the case had no overlap with any specific Green Party Policy?
February 17th, 2007 at 8:28 am
eredwen
Bingo!…you are spot on.
I am first in line to shoot the likes of William Bell, Bailey “Junior” Kurariki and the chap Burton, or do you think these people can be rehabilitated as well?
You are on to something with the sterilization thing, this govt insists on paying NZ’s own version of trailer trash to breed when they should be (to use a phrase Russel likes) “encouraged” not to do so.
I favour paying “no hoper’s” a special bonus (no doubt on top of the unemployment benefit or more likely with this corrupt govt the sickness benefit) of $1000 to have a vasectomy or to have their tubes tied.
Imagine what the savings would be in one generation!
February 17th, 2007 at 10:41 am
bb:
“Trailer trash”? Now that is an interesting epithet!
From where did you get that? It sounds very “Red Neck” USofA to me.
(Aother source of similar ideas that might interest you:
A man called Adolf Hitler expressed them well in the late 1930’s. He had quite a large following at the time. His book is still around. It’s called “Mein Kampf”. I’m pretty sure that President George Bush Junior has got someone to read it to him … or perhaps he even tried to read it himself.)
February 17th, 2007 at 10:55 am
eredwen
Now you are just being silly, tell me what you would do with these people then?
Throwing money at them has not worked, drowning them in social workers has also proven to be a waste of time so lets hear your idea to fix the problem.
Or do you honestly believe that everybody has a right to bludge of the state (there is a phrase I bet you like) if they do not feel like sticking to the rules or working for a living.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
come on b.b….
the gutting of the social welfare system by national..and continuing/ongoing neglect by labour..has led to the development of our underclass..
(brief snapshot of underclass…solo-parent..two-three children..trying to live on a domestic purposes benefit…)
why b.b…do you think it is those countries with (shock..!..horror..!..higher taxes..!..) and strong social support systems..such as holland/sweden..
(thus ensuring no children are forced into poverty through accident of birth…)
have come tops in that recent u.n. study of how well different countries treat/care for their children..?
(you remember..that one that shows just how bad a job we (as a nation) are doing at just that..?..)
oh..they also haven’t been hitting/slapping their children since about..um..1955..?
could you give me a focussed answer to that question please b.b….?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 17th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Right on phil!
We used to be seen as the “Scandinavia of the Soth Pacific”
No longer I am afraid!
Some of our most vulnerable families have continued to pay the price of the “Market Reforms of the 1980’s” and the attitudinal changes in our society that followed.
It is high time we put real programmes that will work (and serious money) to address the damage done. (I do my bit at the local level and believe that I have made a real and lasting difference for a couple of young families for whom I am “honorary grandmother”.)
We need to throw more (targeted and supported) money at the problem not less. “P” addiction aside, having a new baby is THE best time to reach
young parents who are at risk.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Eredwen and Phil
What a lot of emotional clap trap, the “gutting” of the social welfare system by the Nats and a lesser extent the previous Labour govt was necessary as we were going bloody broke, simply put we could not afford to have people deciding that they were better off not working.
The development of the underclass is entirely down to a lack of personal responsibility and the meddling hand of the socialists.
Take away the excuses for under achieving at school, take away all the PC crap that infests our daily life and you may be able to tell kids that unless they work hard they will face a bleak future.
What we have now is kids ( and that is all they are) who make the choice to stay at home and have their own babies as it is a easier option than going to work for a living.
And these are the people you think it is a good idea to throw money at?..come on, take off the blinkers and have a good look.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
so..b.b..you didn’t answer my question..?
y’know..about what is proven to work..?
and about what is proven not to work..?
and the whys..?
have another go..eh..?
(focus now..!..don’t push any of your ‘automatic spiel’ buttons..
and as with most righties..you appear to be able to reduce complex social issues.(young girls having babies..).to a couple of (market-driven) slogans..
it’s quite a ’simple’ world for you..isn’t it b.b…? )
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Phil
If you wrote it in a style that was easily read I might bother but until then I do not have the time nor the inclination.
Cheers
February 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Big bruv. (You are really Mike King with a pseudonym aren’t you? Thought I realised the standup comic genius)
There is only one ‘right’ way isn’t there? And everyone else has it wrong don’t they?
On another note, it might come as a small surprise that you too are only one blow or mistake or from becoming a murderer. Human life can be so frail at times.
“I am first in line to shoot the likes of William Bell,.. ” I imagine that this sort of approach would be OK for you so long as you were not the one pulling the trigger over and over again. Also so long as you were not the one cleaning the blood and spattered brains off the wall? Or would you seriously not have a problem with this. (be sad if you were not bothered by this personally)
Actually I would really like to see references to the following statements:
“compulsory IQ tests for all potential jurors” What standard test would you suggest? Would there be different tests for races, sexes and age breakdowns?
“I want more money and resources spent on the victims not the criminals, personally I would introduce a three strikes and out policy” : Victim support is noble. Be nice if they were never a victim at all. Does this statement mean that you propose giving money to victims and throwing lots of money at building more prisons?
“no hoper’s�: Please define this for me BB. Some would say on this list that there is no hope for you?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Russel -
(trying to ignore b_b’s baiting sideshow)
I’m with you on the whole effectiveness of the jury system thing. I had one go on a jury and I was impressed.
Part of the whole strength of the jury system is that we get people on the jury with a variety of backgrounds and abilities. Some might be academics, while others manual workers. The deepest concern of some might be the state of the planet, while others are simply more concerned with their own appearance. Some may be facinated and attBuentive to all the proceedings in court while others’ eyes may glaze over after the first few minutes each day. Some may possibly even be out of it on some substance (but the council for each side do have the ability to challenge jurors during the selection process as has been mentioned already)
It is the job of the legal council to put the case in terms that all of the jurors can understand.
The point is that the accused are judged by a wide cross section of their own peers. During my jury stint I thought all jurors took their responsibility seriously, certainly all those who talked during the deliberations were trying earnestly to understand and come to the right decision. Mind you, during the hearing I was paying attention to the proceedings and trying to concentrate on the case, not trying to judge my fellow jurors.
Because offenders and accusors are judged by a wide cross-section of their peers, the deliberation is less likely to be biased, and we have a better chance of getting the right outcome. If we had some kind of testing of jurors and only accepted the “clever” ones, then the outcome of cases would be biased. Probably towards the “clever” accusors or accused. In general it’s easier to understand and sympathise with people who are like you.
B_B says: “After hearing all the evidence it was obvious to most what the verdict should be…. If jurors are forced to sit in tiny rooms with people who are not capable of weighing up all the evidence then you run the very real risk of arriving at the wrong verdict.”
Unfortunately, it is possible for jurors to come up with the wrong verdict, but requiring an IQ test for jurors would make this happen more often, not less often. The thing is, there is no way of knowing whether a jury has come to the “right” decision or not, there is no objective way to determine what the outcome of a case “should” be, if there was, there wouldn’t be any need for the jury in the first place. Juries have to sift all the evidence and make a human judgement, bringing all their human experience to bears and using all their faculties, not just their intellect.
After my jury experience, I was so impressed by the jury experience that I’ve often thought that it would be a great way to run a country too. What if parliament was selected like a jury?
While elections to select representatives has its advantages and is certainly better than many other methods, I think a jury system would be even better. People could do say a year in parliament if selected, with say 1/50th of them retiring each week and being replaced with new parliamentarians being selected at random from the electoral rolls.
Some people like “direct” democracy or a proxy system, where everyone can vote on the issues through technology. The trouble with this is that we don’t all have the time to consider all the issues that come up and make an informed decision on all of them. So direct democracy would tend to end up with simplistic decision making would be suceptable to manipulation by forces who can manipulate public opinion (advertisers, media, powerful groups).
The problem of manipulation by the powerful also applies to our current system. Parliamentarians and Parties are lobbied, and in some cases just push the barrow of the powerful in the first place anyhow. At least parliamentarians currently have the time(?) to consider important issues at length and can make an effort to make an independant judgement if they choose. They can recognise the lobbying efforts of the powerful for what they are and try to not be influenced by them. But the party itself is a whole system of conditioning and lobbying which has been acting on the politicians from usually years before they enter parliament.
Of course under my jury system, parliamentarians would be influenced by lobbying from when they enter the parliament, but they would have enough time and parliamentary resources to consider issues themselves and come up with an independant judgement. They could bring all their human experience to bear when making their judgements, and make an effort to come up with the best solution.
How would I feel about having a 16 year old or a 86 year old in parliament? Or someone who has previously only been interested in themselves and getting drunk on the weekends? Or a petrol-head? Or a cynical corporate ladder climber? GREAT! I found during jury service that giving people responsibility is a great way to make them act responsibly. I found everyone took their task seriously. Expect more, get more.
I would prefer to have parliamentary decisions made by 120 truly independant ordinary people who make up their own minds on serious issues, rather than people who vote according to their party lines. I think we’d get better decisions.
I’ve met some of the best of the current politicians (ie, been in the same room with them, perhaps observed would be a better word.) In my judgement they’re earnest, hard working, committed, and throughly political. They’re good with ideas, and they live in their heads. To get into parliament, you need to be in a politial party and you need to work hard, be committed, and play a political game. You need to be smart, articulate and popular.
So the question is, do we want our country to be run by a small group of smart, articulate, hard working, political ideas people? Is that a better way to run the country than a selection of ordinary people? The hard working and the couch potato? Head people and heart people? Old and young, and slightly more women on average than men? People who’s social circles cover a variety of workplaces, clubs, churches, families etc.
One of my frustrations with the current system is that no one has the courage to actually make some bold changes that are needed. I passionately believe in problems of climate change for example, and I’d like to see really bold measures. Lets stop the importation of all cars and fossil fuels in the next year or two and spend billions instead on public transport, energy efficiency and wind farms. There might be a lot of talk, but no political party is willing to take bold steps because it’s politically unpopular, or they don’t have the numbers, or both. Yet I think if those 120 independant parliamentarians in my jury system critically investigate the issues and come to agreement, they are much more likely to make the radical changes necessary. They are motivated to make a beter country for themselves and their families, and less beholden to political interest groups and public opinion.
There would need to be safeguards against them lining their own personal pockets (ie, perks for parliamentarians and ex-parliamentarians), but this is no different than the current system.
I’m sure there are other, and probably better ways of doing this. Maybe a separate jury should be selected for each piece of legislation, and they should deliberate and do their own research for as long as they feel necessary on that legislation? Perhaps the jury system could be an upper house. I think a jury type system really has legs though, in one form or another.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
so you are just all p’*ss and wind/troll-talk….eh..?..b.b..?
simple question..
asked twice..
(b.b whimpers..”..i can’t understand the format..”..)..aww..!!
(translation…”..i can’t answer that question..’..)
pa-thet-ic..!
so..that’s you done and dusted here..eh b.b..?
any cred you might have thought you had/were building..has just blown away..
on yer way..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
btw..if you can’t understand this format..
drop me a whimper..eh..?
or get someone to explain it to you..eh..?
February 17th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
alexking,
What a delightful “breath of fresh air” … and some very good ideas to think about. Thank you!!
Your system, even if watered down and or adapted considerably, would certainly change the purile behaviour all too evidient among some Parliamentarians. Unfortunately much of our Parliament’s way of doing things comes straight out of old British traditions/history and the behaviour it allows and the level of “debate” it encourages, in my view, does not represent who we are.
A Green MP once told me that “the real work is done in Select Committees behind closed doors”, and that “in that situation, away from the media, one finds the most surprising allies”…
I guess jury duty is more like that!
February 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
BB
Despite the fact that I sympathize somewhat with your effort to ask for some minimum intellectual capabilities for jurors, It can’t be made to work without calling into question the intellectual capabilities of voters too. Equally important.
Rather than focusing on excluding people from serving or voting, perhaps the focus should be on including them in learning and achieving.
Some will no doubt, fail… which is why we ALL vote and there’s more than one juror and the judge DOES have to pass a few tests which separate the sheep from the goats (so to speak). It is also why, with the best will in the world, we will always have an underclass. It needn’t be the size of ours.
I reiterate a very powerful question that I learned. If you wish to judge whether a society is “fair” you should answer the following question:
“If you were about to be born and could choose to be born into either society, but COULD NOT choose the social and economic standing of your parents, which would you choose?”
It is not how we treat some, but how we treat all, that makes the difference.
respectfully
BJ
February 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Scott
Thanks for your post, but it is a waste of my time and probably yours if i was to answer all those rather sarcastic points.
Lets just say that we come at this from two directions, you from the left and me from the right.
I would gladly shoot the likes of Bell, Burton and Kurariki where as you would like to see them rehabilitated.
We are never going to agree so really what is the point.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Phil
Again, if you write in a style that is easily read I might reply.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
BJ
Thank goodness, I am happy that you have taken what I said in the manner it was intended, it is rather tiresome to have to defend accusations of elitism when I never intended that to be the case.
All I was trying to point out was that there must be a better way and that some people are clearly not bright enough (for want of a better word) to process that much information in a short space of time and come up with a logical conclusion.
While you raise a good point about voting and serving on juries (personally I would not allow anybody who is unemployed a vote) there must be some safeguards to help prevent an Innocent person being convicted or a guilty person going free.
Finally I agree with part of your last paragraph, I think it is vitally important that we treat everybody the same way in NZ hence my views on special privileges for one race of people but in seeking to treat all people the same we must equally apply the laws in the same even handed fashion.
We have laws for many different reasons one of those is to protect society from the worst kind of people, as I have already said I am all for giving everybody a chance or two but that is it, for violent and serious crimes I believe that taking a persons life should mean that the convicted person never sees the light of day again or even better in the worst cases (William Bell and Burton) re introduce the death penalty.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
answer the question..bb..
it stopped you in your tracks ..eh..?
(holding your hands over your ears going”na na na na..!..i’m not listening..”
eh..?..(heh-heh..!)
so..you thought you’d pick up yr ’special treatment’ race-bashing cudgel did you..?
that really is an old/smelly/past its’ use-by date herring that one..eh..?
(didn’t you get the memo about the maori party..?..)
and what a surprise..!
you’d take away the vote from the (overpaid..eh.?) unemployed..
and you wanta hang em high..!
you want the death penalty back again..
y’know bb..most of your politics are quite repugnant/distasteful..eh..?
sorta extreme rightwing/fascist..eh..?
and i reckon they are repugnant to about 90% of the people who read here..
why are you bothering..?
why don’t you just go back to sir humphrys..and nod in frothing unison with the nutbars that hang there..?
(mind you..i can see why you don’t..it’s like a ghost-town/mausoleum over there..wot with their/your particularly twisted climate-change denial/war-pimping worldview being shown/proven to be a total crock…and all..
you can understand why they are quiet/hurting…with nothing much to say.. )
but if you go there..at least you will be amongst your own..
(can’t answer the simple question…eh..?
heh-heh..i slam-dunked you..eh.b.b….?
and before such a large audience..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 17th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Phil
I got as far as the second line before giving up again, the rest is impossible to follow.
If I had to guess it is mostly juvenile name calling so popular with those from the hard left.
Can i ask you this though, why do you feel the need to advertise what I can only assume is your own blog site on here?, that must be some ego you have.
One more thing, please have a word with Klarke as I really want her to pay the money back she stole from us tax payers.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
bb stumbles out the door..
and drops one last herring on the way..the ‘klarke-stole’ one..
is that your full repertoire we’ve had now..?..b,b..?
and how long have you had this ’selective-reading/comprehension’ condition..?
and it’s quite strange how it kicked in just after i asked ‘that question’..eh..?
and you’ve never had a problem ’till now..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 18th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Phil
I am still happy to answer any questions you may have Phil as soon as I can understand what the questions are.
Bruv (Ego whoar.co.nz)
February 18th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
ah so you are a death penalty supporter BB, so do you support the death penalty for suicide bomber terrorists?
February 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
BB, let me translate from Phil-speak for you …
Why do you think it is those countries with higher taxes and strong social support systems such as Holland or Sweden who have come top in that recent UN study of how well different countries treat/care for their children?
February 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
We would certainly have fewer problems with juries if everyone who was called up reported for duty. Some people get out of jury service on the flimsiest of excuses, and we are generally left with people who do not work for whatever reason, be they retired, unable to work or choose not to. This does not give us the cross-section of NZ society a jury is supposed to represent.
This is why everyone who can should attend jury service, well done Russell for serving.
I will mention though that it is up to the judge to help the jurors to understand the case, what it is that they are deciding on, and what terms such as “reasonable doubt” actually mean. Jurors are only called on to answer questions of fact, not questions of law, so the more intellectual questions are still left up to the judge. Thank goodness we don’t have a system where jurors decide on the penalty, as they seem to do in the US.
That said, I got out of jury service last year … sadly I’m not allowed to be on a jury! It broke my heart…
February 19th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
stuey paraphrased phil:
February 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Why do you think it is those countries with higher taxes and strong social support systems such as Holland or Sweden who have come top in that recent UN study of how well different countries treat/care for their children?
—————————-
Do you have a reference for that (apples with apples?)
Also there is an argument that welfare in the form of the dpb, motivates unsuitable people to become parents, and generally gives a false message to certain sectors of society: “it’s on Nanny States shoulders not mine”
Punishment:
The greens are (justiyiedly) percieved as the most pro criminal of our useless bunch of political parties.
jh
February 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
well there is this reference from the BBC (it links to the full report):
Why are Dutch children so happy?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6360517.stm
February 19th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
jh, did you mean “justifiably”? (meaning “able to be justified”) and “perceived? (spelling rule is “i before e except after c”) …
The argument that the DPB motivates people to become parents …etc is a tired old one that, when studied, turns out to be based more on prejudice than on fact.
Once the kids are there what would you like to see happen to them?
This is something that has been thought about and discussed over generations all around the world.
Remember that we humand have long tried other methods such as “stoning” the adulteress to death, (though usually, for some reason, not the adulteror) … forced marriages, “orphanages”/children’s homes and virtually compulsory adoption. (The adults to whom the last one happened, when they were babies, were not keen to see it continued.)
Perhaps we could try saving sperm in sperm banks before sterilizing (or castrating?) all males at puberty?
As for “The greens are (justiyiedly) percieved as the most pro criminal of our useless bunch of political parties.”
THAT sentence speaks volumes about you.
eredwen
February 20th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
eredwen Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
The argument that the DPB motivates people to become parents …etc is a tired old one that, when studied, turns out to be based more on prejudice than on fact.
———————–
I’d like to see the research. Can you provide some links/ references? Economists can do motivational analysis (perhaps).
============================
Once the kids are there what would you like to see happen to them?
This is something that has been thought about and discussed over generations all around the world.
————————————
That’s a question to ask the prospective parents who knowingly have sex without contraception. A commentator on world population suggested regressive payments for additional children (that’s green stuff). Ultimately though parents shouldn’t use children as hostages.
When society has a paradigm shift re peak oil (that’s green stuff), I’m sure priorities will shift.
===============================
As for “The greens are (justiyiedly) percieved as the most pro criminal of our useless bunch of political parties.�
THAT sentence speaks volumes about you.
————————————————————
It suggests I made a spelling error and your out of ammo.
jh