On Trial for Murder. Judge or Jury?

[JayTee]

Please don't move this to politics.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but what the heck?

Scenario:

You are awoken from sleep one night by police entering your home. You are carted off to jail and told that you are being charged with murder. You are told that you must choose a trial by judge or jury before you speak to your lawyer (just go along with me here). What do you choose if you are guilty (assuming that you want to make the choice that gives you the best chance of getting off)? What do you choose is you are innocent?

With no other information on the crime given I believe any rational person would choose a trial by judge if they are innocent and a trial by jury if they are guilty. The thought behind this is that the judge on average is probably better at logical thought and therefore more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion than not.

While a jury does have to reach a unanimous decision, I believe there is more likely to be group thought going on and a self appointed leader will try to force opinions on others. Or in other words, I wouldn't feel secure about twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty deciding my fate.

On the other hand, if I am guilty I would almost necessarily want a trial by jury. Being on average less trained in logical reasoning than a judge, they would be more likely to appeal to emotion and not be able to untangle the elaborate stories, excuses etc.. of my attorney.

Conclusion: People with trials by jury are guilty. (I should probably write down this URL and submit if I ever want off of jury duty /images/graemlins/cool.gif )

So I ask. What would you choose?

[FortunaMaximus]

Judge for both instances.

'cause if I got nailed, nice job by an inept system, they deserve to put me away for the hard jack. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[alphatmw]

i think a unanimous guilty decision is always harder than a judge's guilty decision, so jury both times.

[tolbiny]

If i'm guilty i want an incorrect verdict- your average person seems more likely to be wrong than one specialist so i'll take the jury. If innocent i want the opposite situation.

[soon2bepro]

Nº 1 is easily a jury, but question nº 2 needs more thinking... Since you need an unanimous decision, is it more likely to get 12/12 people (they don't just call up anyone, do they? I'm unfamiliar with the system, but I think they need them to have some sort of educational status to be eligible for jury, so it's above average), than to get 1/1 judge to be biased//bad at reasoning?

I chose judge, because I think it is, but honestly I'm not sure.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
Nº 1 is easily a jury, but question nº 2 needs more thinking... Since you need an unanimous decision, is it more likely to get 12/12 people (they don't just call up anyone, do they? I'm unfamiliar with the system, but I think they need them to have some sort of educational status to be eligible for jury, so it's above average), than to get 1/1 judge to be biased//bad at reasoning?

I chose judge, because I think it is, but honestly I'm not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is "Is each juror making a decision based on his own judgment and under no influence?" If the jurors were kept seperated then the odds are very low that they all come up with a guilty verdict randomly. But they aren't seperated, they discuss the trial together. Thats where the idea on group thought comes in, meaning that you are going to have leaders and followers. So a unaminous decision isn't all that its cracked up to be.

Also, I'm no expert on juries either, but I think if you are a registered voter then you can be on a jury. Others can chime in if there is more to add to this.

[Borodog]

You totally biased the poll.

The police, prosecutor, and judge all work for the same gang, and probably all know each other. The prosectuor and judge probably play golf together.

I'll take a jury for both, thank you very much.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
You totally biased the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the way to get people to agree with you /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The police, prosecutor, and judge all work for the same gang, and probably all know each other. The prosectuor and judge probably play golf together.

I'll take a jury for both, thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome? Although, I did say you are on trial for murder and not tax evasion. The gang is probably less likely to wrongly convict you for the former.

In all seriousness, I was discussing a completely different point. All else being equal would you still rather have a jury for both?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You totally biased the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the way to get people to agree with you /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The police, prosecutor, and judge all work for the same gang, and probably all know each other. The prosectuor and judge probably play golf together.

I'll take a jury for both, thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome? Although, I did say you are on trial for murder and not tax evasion. The gang is probably less likely to wrongly convict you for the former.

In all seriousness, I was discussing a completely different point. All else being equal would you still rather have a jury for both?

[/ QUOTE ]

For a criminal trial, I would always prefer a jury. However, the jury system has been totally perverted by judges anyway, so it's not a simple question.

[madnak]

By the same token, the judge is familiar with the strategies of the prosecutor. Assuming there's a reasonable amount of evidence against me, I'm innocent, and I can't afford a decent defense attorney, then I'll go with the judge every time. The jury doesn't understand that the situation is rigged and they'll be much more easily swayed by the eloquence of the prosecutor.

If I can afford a good defense attorney, I'll go jury every time - the relative competence of the attorneys is a huge issue here. A good lawyer can convince a jury of almost anything.

[soon2bepro]

Hmm that's a very good point madnak, it made me realize, just because someone is innocent doesn't mean the logical conclusion is that he is. So in this case it's best to take a jury again, because they're more likely to screw up. (aren't they?)

What I mean when I say screwing up isn't to come to the wrong conclusion, but coming to the wrong conclusion given the available evidence.

Following the same logic, even if you are guilty, and you can't afford a decent lawyer, maybe you should go with the judge if you think the case against you isn't that strong.



Jaytee: You're right about the followers and leaders, but even then, I'm not sure it's enough. From US registered voters I'm assuming at least 20% are able to apply basic logic. And then you have to consider that many judges are close-minded individuals, I don't know how many or how much.

[madnak]

Yes, assuming the same evidence you should always make the same choice, regardless of your innocence or guilt. And that choice will mostly be jury. Although, the less evidence there is against me, the more likely I am to choose judge. A jury is more likely to be influenced based on pure rhetoric and a total lack of evidence.

[chezlaw]

I fear going to court just in case the judge is perceptive enough to immediately hold me in contempt.

chez