Edward Colston statue and trial by jury

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it was very interesting that the jury refused to convict the people who pulled down Edward Colston's statue, even though they did it. This has obviously annoyed quite a few people.

Arguably this is just one of the quirks of trial by jury though. I think if you have that system, then it's the jury's right to decide not to convict if they think a conviction would be unreasonable, even if the thing objectively happened. I have previously questioned trial by jury, although not for reasons relating to this.

Taking this to its logical conclusions though, a jury could conceivably acquit someone of a more serious crime, such as a revenge murder, if the initial crime that led to it was deemed egregious enough by the jury. I imagine though that this would be fairly unlikely and the judge would probably be quite strict and specific with them about what they should use a guilty or not guilty verdict for. But ultimately the judge would not be able to stop them.

[Mark James]

Taking this to its logical conclusions though, a jury could conceivably acquit someone of a more serious crime, such as a revenge murder, if the initial crime that led to it was deemed egregious enough by the jury. I imagine though that this would be fairly unlikely and the judge would probably be quite strict and specific with them about what they should use a guilty or not guilty verdict for. But ultimately the judge would not be able to stop them.

This has pretty much already happened. Remember O.J. Simpson. It wasn't a revenge murder but it was the police's decades of racism that contributed to the jury deciding to acquit and let a clearly guilty black man go free. I guess irony can be pretty ironic.

[Matt Rutherford]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

Good explainer above-not linked to the incident itself

[Callum Todd]

There's an old Richard Dawkins essay about Trial by Jury. It was written for The Observer in 1997. Found a copy-pasted version here.

[Gavin Chipper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

Good explainer above-not linked to the incident itself

Interesting.

There's an old Richard Dawkins essay about Trial by Jury. It was written for The Observer in 1997. Found a copy-pasted version here.

Interesting. But I think it's always been clear that a jury is a terrible way of determining the truth. It must seem very weird for someone closely following a trial to then go into the pretend mode of "Now let's see what the truth of the matter is" when they, having followed the trial, know as much as the jury do, and really they're awaiting just another opinion.

And yet trial by jury is never seriously questioned at any high level. It's like it has become an unquestionable axiom of a fair and democratic society.

[Mark James]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/ ... ould-know/

Good piece here on the trial and jury verdict.

[Gavin Chipper]

Quite an interesting read, thanks. It's interesting that a jury can find someone not guilty on the basis that a conviction wouldn't be proportionate.

Also it was good that this serious article managed to slip in the word "batshit".