Taking juries seriously By The Lawyer 5 December 2011 14:57 17 December 2015 14:03 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Martin 5 December 2011 at 17:27 What do you think should happen in cases where the law has been quite blatantly disregarded? I’m thinking Clive Ponting, etc. The concept of jury nullification seems to be gaining popularity in the US, albeit in largely fringe areas. Can such a concept be reconciled with the rule of law? What about the right to a fair trial? Reply Link Danny Moules 5 December 2011 at 18:02 It is my understanding, though admittedly severly limited as a layman, that when a juror is actually knowledgeable about a subject and use that in their deliberations, it results in a mistrial. For example in the matter of computer crimes I have heard more than one tale of those familiar with computers and their functions questioning expert testimony and, as a result, ultimately being replaced by those entirely ignorant of the subject. This strikes me as a good place to start since, as a layman, I’m having difficulty fathoming a good reason for this beyond avoiding ‘mudding the waters’. Reply Link Kimpatsu 6 December 2011 at 03:53 “jurors are responsible adults” I disagree. The definition of a jury is 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. In America, where jurors can discuss their deliberations publicly after rendering their verdict, we have had a jury convict based on a passage in the Bible about witches, a jury acquit a defendant because of his Zodiac sign, and at least one jury that convicted a defendant of the non-crime of not being American. How can you trust people like that anywhere near the judicial system? Reply Link Julie Carlisle 17 January 2014 at 14:36 Cheers Kimpatsu. I’m a lawyer, and I’ve done jury service. What I saw on two separate juries was extremely encouraging and I’m a great supporter of the current system. My experience was that jurors take very seriously the warnings not to discuss the evidence outside the jury room, and not to research on the internet. The random selection process really does throw together a mixed group of people and whilst there will always be the odd idiot maverick I think we can trust the average, mature and sensible juror to “self-police” Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.