Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate
.
My reply to this status post against JurySys
=================================
.
See the comment at https://www.facebook.com/Sandy839/posts/1119585344771782?comment_id=1119650544765262&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
.
=====
.
No comparison done with judge system !!!
,.
JurySys is worse than some unknown unspecified uncoded ideal system . Hence judge system is better than JurySys !!!
.
=====
.
IMO, one should confine with COMPARING judge system and JurySys and not compare either with some unknown uncodes undescribed ideal system
,.
===
.
The status post says --- Jurors are emotional !!! The status post makes NO attempt to compare emotional Jurors with judges who potentially might have all nefarious nexuses with lawyers, elitemen etc.
.
And I dismiss the claim that Jurors are emotional as wrong
.
===
.
As per specific cases, please see Rodney King video from YT. I have seen the video over and over again,. The cops were hitting club NOT on dead but back side or butts. The cops used clus ONLY when Rodney King tried to get up despite the fact that he was ordered to lie down on the ground. There is NO mindless cruelty done by four cops in the video.
.
Likewise, in 1959 or so, the Jury acquitted Nanavati in Prem Ahuja murder case because back then paternity fraud was a serious problem and a serious crime, and so adultery was seen as murder. The Jurors saw Prem Ahuja as criminal and Nanavati as victim of crime was taking revenge. And Jurors were NOT given option of giving punishment like 7 years in prison. The Jurors were given only two options --- acquit Nanavati or possibley execute Nanavati. And so Jurors took least bad of the two options.
.
Today, paternity fraud doesnt happen due to DNA test and so action of adultery has become non crime.
.
====
.
And while you curese JurySys, why dont YOU first propose law-drafst to reduce corruption, nepotism etc in Supreme judgesm High judges , District judges and Magistrates? I bet you have NO law-drafts to deal with mess,. And all you have is "Jury System is bad, Jury Sys is bad" statements.
Sandeep Kumar:
Jury system why not applicable here...
I will write in hindi when i will get time.I took it from wiki with example.
For example, in highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to convict based on personal feelings rather than on conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In France, former attorney, then later minister of Justice Robert Badinter, remarked about jury trials in France that they were like "riding a ship into a storm," because they are much less predictable than bench trials.
Another issue with jury trials is the potential for jurors to be swayed by prejudice, including racial considerations. An infamous case was the 1992 trial in the Rodney King case in California, in which white police officers were acquitted of excessive force in the violent beating of a black man by a jury consisting mostly of whites without any black jurors.
The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the US contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen. Consider Japan, for instance, which used to have optional jury trials for capital or other serious crimes between 1928 and 1943. The defendant could freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by judges, and the decisions of the jury were non-binding. During the Tōjō-regime this was suspended, arguably stemming from the popular belief that any defendant who risks his fate on the opinions of untrained laymen is almost certainly guilty. Similarly, jury trials were abolished by the government of India in 1960 (this was followed by Pakistan soon afterwards) on the grounds that they would be susceptible to media and public influence. One Pakistani judge called a trial by jury "amateur justice." Malaysia abolished its jury system on 1 January 1995, citing inter alia the danger of jurors untrained in the legal profession delivering verdicts colored by emotions or popular perception. One of the last trials-by-jury in Malaysia was the notorious Mona Fandey case in 1994.[citation needed]
Jury trials in multi-cultural countries with a history of ethnic tensions may be problematic, and lead to juries being unduly biased and partial. This is one of the reasons why both India and Pakistan abolished jury trials soon after independence. Indeed, in these countries, a jury trial is seen as a failing of some foreign legal system rather than an advantage; this is despite the fact that both nations are common law countries.
A major issue in jury trials is the secretive nature of the process. While proponents may say that secrecy allows the jury to remain impartial by protecting it from undue pressure or attention, opponents contend that this prevents there from being a transparent trial. The fact that juries do not often have to give a reason for their verdict is also criticized, since opponents argue it is unfair for a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without being told why it is being done so. In contrast where there is a decision by a judge or judges, they are required to provide often detailed reasons of both fact and law as to why their decision was made.
One issue that has been raised is the ability of a jury to fully understand statistical or scientific evidence. It has been said that the expectation of jury members as to the explanatory power of scientific evidence has been raised by television in what is known as the CSI effect. In at least one English trial the misuse or misunderstanding or misrepresentation by the prosecution of statistics has led to wrongful conviction