Home > General Politics > The stupidity of the Pryce jury sneerers laid bare

The stupidity of the Pryce jury sneerers laid bare

The usual suspects have joined in with the sneering at the jury’s questions to the judge in the Vicky Pryce trial.   I am afraid this reflects more on their stupidity than it does on the jury’s.

The reason for the apparently ‘no-brainer’ questions to the judge is perfectly obvious to anyone with the capacity to think things through.  It goes something like this in the jury room:

Jury forewoman/man:  So, fellow jury member, are you still saying that you think she’s guilty/innocent because of what you saw in the paper, and that this is more important than any of the evidence you’ve heard?

Fellow jury member: Well yeah, I think she’s guilty, alright?  I don’t care about the evidence.

Jury forewoman/man: [Sighs]  Right, ok, how about if I ask the judge whether that’s a reasonable approach for the jury to take.  If he says, yes, then fine.  If he says we have to stick to the evidence and what we’ve heard in court, will you go with that?

Fellow jury member:  Well, yeah, ok.

Jury forewoman/man:  Ok, and while we’re at it, is there anything else we need to be absolutely certain on……

That is, the questions almost certainly emanate from the reluctance of one or a small number of members’ to engage properly with the jury process, and the attempts of the forewoman/man, perhaps at the instigation of other members, to find a way through which deals respectfully but firmly with this frustrating impasse.  (In times past, I found myself using roughly the same technique with fellow magistrates whom I thought were getting the wrong end of the stick i.e. suggesting that we check for clarity with the clerk of the court, confident that s/he would back my interpretation.)

In the end, no verdict was possible in the Pryce trial, but to suggest that this reflects the stupidity of a whole jury is itself pretty stupid.

Of course, in Tom Harris’s case, his misreading fits nicely with his Burkean self-image as one of a small elite band with sufficent God-given powers of judgment whose task it is to save us all from our own stupidity.

Which kind of underlines his stupidity.

About these ads
Categories: General Politics
  1. February 21, 2013 at 11:29 am | #1

    That kind of juror opinion must happen all the time and yet the judge said he’d never encountered this situation in over 30 years. That suggests its something much more unusual. Probably the luck of the draw and this jury had 6 or 7 people with a poor grasp of the basics.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: