This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The phone hacking trial is "expected to last many months", perhaps until Easter. Aren't there big problems with this? Other than the huge expense of such a trial, can a jury properly assimilate many months of information? Further, the sorts of people best able to assimilate many months of information will mostly be in jobs where they can't take 6 months off for this, so inevitably the jury selection will be biased towards less-able members of the public (plus retired people).
Wouldn't a better system be to give the prosecution up to 10 days of court time to make their case, and give the defence the same time constraint? Are you really going to get a better and more reliable verdict from the other 100-odd days of court time?
Wouldn't a better system be to give the prosecution up to 10 days of court time to make their case, and give the defence the same time constraint? Are you really going to get a better and more reliable verdict from the other 100-odd days of court time?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Yes.
Judges generally aren't stupid, they have case management powers and try to keep trials from going on for too long. But if there are complex issues to be explored, and the defence wants to challenge them, it's going to take a long time.
The research suggests that jurors cope ok with long and complex cases. I've not seen anything to suggest that jurors in long cases are 'less able'.
> Are you really going to get a better and more reliable verdict from the other 100-odd days of court time?
Yes.
Judges generally aren't stupid, they have case management powers and try to keep trials from going on for too long. But if there are complex issues to be explored, and the defence wants to challenge them, it's going to take a long time.
The research suggests that jurors cope ok with long and complex cases. I've not seen anything to suggest that jurors in long cases are 'less able'.
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
One of the features of the OK system is that we're not really allowed to do research into juries and their decisions. What is the evidence that the jury are properly assimilating months and months of evidence?
> The research suggests that jurors cope ok with long and complex cases.
One of the features of the OK system is that we're not really allowed to do research into juries and their decisions. What is the evidence that the jury are properly assimilating months and months of evidence?
In reply to Coel Hellier: Do you know if jurors ages are recorded? Establishing whether there is indeed a bias towards older juries in long trials would be interesting.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Sally-Lloyd-Bostock interviewed the jurors in the Jubilee Line case when it collapsed.
You can actually do quite a bit of research on real jurors so long as you keep the questions pretty general and don't ask about specifics of a case. But there is also research from the US where the rules aren't so strict, I wouldn't swear to it but my memory is that that doesn't raise concerns about the ability of jurors in long and complex cases.
Sally-Lloyd-Bostock interviewed the jurors in the Jubilee Line case when it collapsed.
You can actually do quite a bit of research on real jurors so long as you keep the questions pretty general and don't ask about specifics of a case. But there is also research from the US where the rules aren't so strict, I wouldn't swear to it but my memory is that that doesn't raise concerns about the ability of jurors in long and complex cases.
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
>The research suggests that jurors cope ok with long and complex cases
Having just scanned the report you mention I don't know how you can claim jurors "cope OK". It sounds utterly horrendous - resulting in loss of a job for one juror and high-handed, contemptuous treatment by the court from beginning to end.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>>The research suggests that jurors cope ok with long and complex cases
> Sally-Lloyd-Bostock interviewed the jurors in the Jubilee Line case when it collapsed.
>
>
Having just scanned the report you mention I don't know how you can claim jurors "cope OK". It sounds utterly horrendous - resulting in loss of a job for one juror and high-handed, contemptuous treatment by the court from beginning to end.
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
I'm coming at this partly from the point of view of teaching in universities, where there has been a lot of research on how well people assimilate information.
The evidence is that if people sit there while information is presented to them (e.g. a lecture) then when tested only an hour or so later their recall can be as low as 5% to 10%. Thus to teach effectively you need to include lots of "active" exercises, such as them doing tasks, writing essays, solving problems, etc.
We know this because we frequently assess how much they have actually assimilated, by use of tests and exams. From this perspective, the idea that they can have months and months of listening to "lectures", in a largely passive way, and then assimilate and recall any significant fraction of it is rather ludicrous.
Has there been any decent research on this for juries? Not about interpretation or verdict, but simple factual recall. As in, "two weeks ago X gave 2 hrs of evidence, please answer these factual questions as to what he said, you may use your notes if you took any".
From the point of view of university teaching where we regularly do exactly this, I think people generally would be pretty surprised at how bad humans in general are at this. What people do tend to do is form and retain is a "general impression", but it would seem to me that one could form a general impression just as well from a time-limited 10 days.
You say: "if there are complex issues to be explored, and the defence wants to challenge them, it's going to take a long time" -- how much of that complexity is the jury following, as oppose to just forming a general impression?
I'm coming at this partly from the point of view of teaching in universities, where there has been a lot of research on how well people assimilate information.
The evidence is that if people sit there while information is presented to them (e.g. a lecture) then when tested only an hour or so later their recall can be as low as 5% to 10%. Thus to teach effectively you need to include lots of "active" exercises, such as them doing tasks, writing essays, solving problems, etc.
We know this because we frequently assess how much they have actually assimilated, by use of tests and exams. From this perspective, the idea that they can have months and months of listening to "lectures", in a largely passive way, and then assimilate and recall any significant fraction of it is rather ludicrous.
Has there been any decent research on this for juries? Not about interpretation or verdict, but simple factual recall. As in, "two weeks ago X gave 2 hrs of evidence, please answer these factual questions as to what he said, you may use your notes if you took any".
From the point of view of university teaching where we regularly do exactly this, I think people generally would be pretty surprised at how bad humans in general are at this. What people do tend to do is form and retain is a "general impression", but it would seem to me that one could form a general impression just as well from a time-limited 10 days.
You say: "if there are complex issues to be explored, and the defence wants to challenge them, it's going to take a long time" -- how much of that complexity is the jury following, as oppose to just forming a general impression?
In reply to MG:
Well, before you get over-excited perhaps you should read what I was saying in context, i.e. responding to Coel's claim that jurors do not have the intellectual capacity to cope with long and complex cases.
>
> Having just scanned the report you mention I don't know how you can claim jurors "cope OK". It sounds utterly horrendous - resulting in loss of a job for one juror and high-handed, contemptuous treatment by the court from beginning to end.
> Having just scanned the report you mention I don't know how you can claim jurors "cope OK". It sounds utterly horrendous - resulting in loss of a job for one juror and high-handed, contemptuous treatment by the court from beginning to end.
Well, before you get over-excited perhaps you should read what I was saying in context, i.e. responding to Coel's claim that jurors do not have the intellectual capacity to cope with long and complex cases.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
For an academic you act real dumb at times. Have you tried googling the research or even talking to some of your colleagues in law or social sciences (they won't infect you you know).
For an academic you act real dumb at times. Have you tried googling the research or even talking to some of your colleagues in law or social sciences (they won't infect you you know).
In reply to Offwidth:
Yep, and the most common reply is "it would be real nice to be able to do some real research on juries".
> Have you tried googling the research or even talking to some of your colleagues in law or social sciences ...
Yep, and the most common reply is "it would be real nice to be able to do some real research on juries".
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm not sure that is such an issue in the jury trial - the evidence gets summarised at the end of the case so they don't have to remember what was said a month ago. Nowadays I think more and more written material and summaries are given to the jury.
Often the general impression will be what is important: is Brooks lying? But as I've said, the research I've read tends to conclude that juries are pretty competent in complex cases, though there is obviously a lot that can be done to make issues more/less complex, easy to follow etc, and I think the courts are now more on top of this than they were in the past.
> (In reply to Mike Redmayne)
>
>
> Has there been any decent research on this for juries? Not about interpretation or verdict, but simple factual recall. As in, "two weeks ago X gave 2 hrs of evidence, please answer these factual questions as to what he said, you may use your notes if you took any".
>
>
> Has there been any decent research on this for juries? Not about interpretation or verdict, but simple factual recall. As in, "two weeks ago X gave 2 hrs of evidence, please answer these factual questions as to what he said, you may use your notes if you took any".
I'm not sure that is such an issue in the jury trial - the evidence gets summarised at the end of the case so they don't have to remember what was said a month ago. Nowadays I think more and more written material and summaries are given to the jury.
> You say: "if there are complex issues to be explored, and the defence wants to challenge them, it's going to take a long time" -- how much of that complexity is the jury following, as oppose to just forming a general impression?
Often the general impression will be what is important: is Brooks lying? But as I've said, the research I've read tends to conclude that juries are pretty competent in complex cases, though there is obviously a lot that can be done to make issues more/less complex, easy to follow etc, and I think the courts are now more on top of this than they were in the past.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Your google technique must be special, mine gave several papers
Being serious about colleagues mine would say it would be nice if there were more research on juries (or it would be nice if "I" could to do some research on juries): you sure your not being naughty and misquoting yours?
Your google technique must be special, mine gave several papers
Being serious about colleagues mine would say it would be nice if there were more research on juries (or it would be nice if "I" could to do some research on juries): you sure your not being naughty and misquoting yours?
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
If they don't need to remember what was said a month ago then why did they need to listen to it? Why don't the prosecution and defence just prepare their "summaries" and present those to the jury? Indeed, this is exactly what I'm suggesting in terms of a trial consisting of 10 days max for each side.
Can you point me to this evidence? Or, more to the point, evidence that they would not do just as well given 10-day summaries prepared by each side.
> the evidence gets summarised at the end of the case so they don't have to remember what was said a month ago.
If they don't need to remember what was said a month ago then why did they need to listen to it? Why don't the prosecution and defence just prepare their "summaries" and present those to the jury? Indeed, this is exactly what I'm suggesting in terms of a trial consisting of 10 days max for each side.
> But as I've said, the research I've read tends to conclude that juries are pretty competent in complex cases,
Can you point me to this evidence? Or, more to the point, evidence that they would not do just as well given 10-day summaries prepared by each side.
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
Well OK but the report barely addressed that - it just mentioned that the complexity was OK but the quantity difficult for jurors from what I could see, which if anything suggests a more condensed trial would have benefits.
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> Well, before you get over-excited perhaps you should read what I was saying in context, i.e. responding to Coel's claim that jurors do not have the intellectual capacity to cope with long and complex cases.
> [...]
>
> Well, before you get over-excited perhaps you should read what I was saying in context, i.e. responding to Coel's claim that jurors do not have the intellectual capacity to cope with long and complex cases.
Well OK but the report barely addressed that - it just mentioned that the complexity was OK but the quantity difficult for jurors from what I could see, which if anything suggests a more condensed trial would have benefits.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
If you're so keen on this, why don't you go watch the trial and report back on what could have been done better and quicker?
I can't see your 10 day summaries working in our system. We have an oral tradition where credibility evaluations are seen as important. This means getting evidence from witnesses through questioning - though in longer trials the judge will try to get the parties to agree as much evidence as they can. But where they don't agree - and after all this is a trial where one person is saying guilty and the other innocent - the disputed versions will be thrashed out in detail. Maybe they don't have such long trials in civil law systems where the parties have less control over the case - eg France - that's quite possible, but you're not easily going to resolve the debate about which system is better.
If you want a taste of the literature try googling vidmar civil jury complex. You'll find stuff there to support fears about juries not coping, but the overall message I think is positive - subject to the caveats above.
> (In reply to Mike Redmayne)
>
>
> Can you point me to this evidence? Or, more to the point, evidence that they would not do just as well given 10-day summaries prepared by each side.
>
>
> Can you point me to this evidence? Or, more to the point, evidence that they would not do just as well given 10-day summaries prepared by each side.
If you're so keen on this, why don't you go watch the trial and report back on what could have been done better and quicker?
I can't see your 10 day summaries working in our system. We have an oral tradition where credibility evaluations are seen as important. This means getting evidence from witnesses through questioning - though in longer trials the judge will try to get the parties to agree as much evidence as they can. But where they don't agree - and after all this is a trial where one person is saying guilty and the other innocent - the disputed versions will be thrashed out in detail. Maybe they don't have such long trials in civil law systems where the parties have less control over the case - eg France - that's quite possible, but you're not easily going to resolve the debate about which system is better.
If you want a taste of the literature try googling vidmar civil jury complex. You'll find stuff there to support fears about juries not coping, but the overall message I think is positive - subject to the caveats above.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Chances are the jury won't even be present for many of the discussions in a trial as toxic as this one. As a fellow layman, I feel your frustation, not just in terms of hardship for the juries but in terms of cost to the taxpayer, but it's worth talking to a few criminal lawyers about this - Long trials are a pain for them as well because it puts all their other work on hold. They're usually more interesting than ecologists at parties as well
> (In reply to Mike Redmayne)
>
> [...]
>
> If they don't need to remember what was said a month ago then why did they need to listen to it? Why don't the prosecution and defence just prepare their "summaries" and present those to the jury? Indeed, this is exactly what I'm suggesting in terms of a trial consisting of 10 days max for each side.
>
>Because it isn't just about weighing the evidence - it's about the credibility of the witnesses to the jurors. As it happens I was talking about this to mrs T on the basis that long trials are prone to collapse for all sorts of reasons - (usually incompetence in the cps). It's been a long time since she did anything involving juries, apart from the odd inquest, but she said it was at least as important that the jury sees the evidence presented / witnesses, as the evidence itself. >
> [...]
>
> If they don't need to remember what was said a month ago then why did they need to listen to it? Why don't the prosecution and defence just prepare their "summaries" and present those to the jury? Indeed, this is exactly what I'm suggesting in terms of a trial consisting of 10 days max for each side.
>
Chances are the jury won't even be present for many of the discussions in a trial as toxic as this one. As a fellow layman, I feel your frustation, not just in terms of hardship for the juries but in terms of cost to the taxpayer, but it's worth talking to a few criminal lawyers about this - Long trials are a pain for them as well because it puts all their other work on hold. They're usually more interesting than ecologists at parties as well
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
My system would still include that, it would just be up to the prosecution and defence to decide who were the crucial witnesses, in terms of who might be lying, and focus on cross-examination of them in their 10-days of time.
At the moment the legal system expects all evidence to be presented orally at length. It's even worse in public enquiries, where this can drag on for years (the Bloody Sunday enquiry took 12 years).
> We have an oral tradition where credibility evaluations are seen as important. This means
> getting evidence from witnesses through questioning
> getting evidence from witnesses through questioning
My system would still include that, it would just be up to the prosecution and defence to decide who were the crucial witnesses, in terms of who might be lying, and focus on cross-examination of them in their 10-days of time.
At the moment the legal system expects all evidence to be presented orally at length. It's even worse in public enquiries, where this can drag on for years (the Bloody Sunday enquiry took 12 years).
In reply to toad:
Sure, but rarely is it about the credibility of all the witnesses. You could have a system where the defence and prosecution are expected to agree on the uncontroversial bits of the evidence -- either would be free to dispute any aspect, but that disputation would come out of their time budget.
> - it's about the credibility of the witnesses to the jurors.
Sure, but rarely is it about the credibility of all the witnesses. You could have a system where the defence and prosecution are expected to agree on the uncontroversial bits of the evidence -- either would be free to dispute any aspect, but that disputation would come out of their time budget.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well, sometimes things are complex, and if you don't know where the truth lies it's not easy to summarise. It's even more complex when there is more than one defendant, each with their own lawyer.
But anyway, whatever the general issues about long and complex cases, I can't see why you're complaining about the Brooks trial. We get several months of entertainment. It's going to be brilliant! Worth every penny.
Well, sometimes things are complex, and if you don't know where the truth lies it's not easy to summarise. It's even more complex when there is more than one defendant, each with their own lawyer.
But anyway, whatever the general issues about long and complex cases, I can't see why you're complaining about the Brooks trial. We get several months of entertainment. It's going to be brilliant! Worth every penny.
In reply to Coel Hellier: I think there is a wider issue too: that of the justice system being fair to all involved, not just the accused. The report above suggests being a juror for six months is not that much less stressful than an equivalent prison sentence in many respects!
Even if very lengthy trials do occasionally result in more robust convictions (or aquittals) this benefit should be offset against the cost (financial, social, employment etc) endured by jurors.
Even if very lengthy trials do occasionally result in more robust convictions (or aquittals) this benefit should be offset against the cost (financial, social, employment etc) endured by jurors.
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
I'd rather see a short trial. How much taxpayers money has already been spent on this mess, and they might still walk.
Anyhow having taken on Jesus in a very long trial on UKC I wondered what target Coel would go for next. These Professors of Critical Psychology get so much time to play with the assumptions made in society.
I'd rather see a short trial. How much taxpayers money has already been spent on this mess, and they might still walk.
Anyhow having taken on Jesus in a very long trial on UKC I wondered what target Coel would go for next. These Professors of Critical Psychology get so much time to play with the assumptions made in society.
In reply to Offwidth:
Tsk, tsk, we've been through this one before. Coel just has (tax-payer funded) tasks to complete and as long as he gets them done, the rest of his time is his own. I can't see what your problem is. Honestly!
> I wondered what target Coel would go for next. These Professors of Critical Psychology get so much time to play with the assumptions made in society.
Tsk, tsk, we've been through this one before. Coel just has (tax-payer funded) tasks to complete and as long as he gets them done, the rest of his time is his own. I can't see what your problem is. Honestly!
In reply to seankenny:
Don't worry I meet him from time to time at BMC area meetings (and may now owe him a pint for pulling his leg... something from the St Peter brewery maybe .
Don't worry I meet him from time to time at BMC area meetings (and may now owe him a pint for pulling his leg... something from the St Peter brewery maybe .
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...