what would be the rationale for taping the deliberations anyway other than some prurient need for the media to show some drama. I dont think theres any precedent for challenging the way a jury deliberated, only if they followed the judges instructions or not. The original reason these deliberations were secret is to avoid any kind of influence.
A private vote is necessary to protect the voter against pressure that would affect the decision. If jury deliberations were made public, I expect that jury tampering would become more common, and even without tampering, more decisions would be influenced by societal and familial pressure.
BTW, the TBay Law Association is putting on Twelve Angry Jurors this spring.
I see a lot of Kramer-type statements, “Oh, brother it’s bad! Believe me, it’s bad!” But I don’t see any reasonable explanations about why it’s bad. What is so desirable and ethical about a man-behind-the-curtain verdict? The only possible problem I can see having with it is that juries might be seen nullifying law rather than finding fact.
The private vote analogy fails because a voter is an individual selecting his government, whereas a jury is a governmental institution deciding the fate of an individual.
Good Lord, ‘Writ of Mandamus’ sounds too damn Tolkienesque!
What I set out was not an analogy.
Okay, sorry. What rhetorical construction did you intend for your point about the private vote?
The people who sit on jurys vote amongst themselves to decide the issue put before them. This voting is not open to public. That is what this thread is about, for if cameras are allowed in the jury room during deliberations, then the jurors’ votes will become public.
As I previously stated, if the voting were open to public, then I expect that jury tampering would become more common, and even without tampering, more decisions would be influenced by societal and familial pressure.
It is the decision making process free of duress, and based on only the evidence admitted at trial and applicable law, that is important, not whether or not one is an instrument of the state by being a juror. Anything less would be no more than a people’s kangaroo court.
Bad. People behave very differently on camera. The trial is public, so cameras are just an extension of that premise.
I’m sure it won’t be long, though, before we get to see the new reality TV show called… The Jury!
If the use of video cameras was optional, I would support it. All 12 members of the jury (and their alternates, I suppose) would have to sign a release form stating they didn’t object to videotaping the deliberations. If they all agreed, the court could videotape them, if not, they couldn’t.
Likewise, if the tapes were being used purely for sociological purposes, I would support them being used. If someone were trying to write a thesis paper on how juries deliberate, I wouldn’t mind cameras going in the jury room.
But I don’t like jurors having no choice in whether they’re videotaped. I don’t like an already limited jury pool being greatly reduced for what isn’t even a necessary part of a trial process.
Most jurors don’t know the law. Most jurors know they don’t know the law. I kinda think I know the law and even I’d be wigged out at lawyers on both sides hanging on my every word, intensely studying every part of the deliberation for some mistake they can bring up on appeal. You know that’s what’s going to happen.
Why should jurors know the law? They’re merely finders of fact. All they do is decide what is fact about the case and what isn’t. They are voting as agents of government in accordance with the judge’s instructions about the law. Why should their votes and findings be secret any more than congressional votes and findings should be secret?
Actually, I am in favour of cameras in the jury room but NOT for public release. I do think that the jury system needs review and I think there should be some effort to take a look at what is really going on in there.
I don’t think that footage should be viewed within a certain period after the end of the trial, and I also think it should not be made public (unless as part of a special doco into juries, with faces blacked out) EVER.
However I do think it would be useful for judiciary system review organisations to be able to find out what is going on in the jury room. Because from all the evidence(!) I have heard - from lawyers, judges, and ex-jurors, many times the “twelve good men and true” do not stick to their remit of examining the facts put before them.
Juries determine innocence or guilt, and as such are far more than “merely finders of fact.”
Jurors are not agents of the government. The Crown Attorney or the District Attorney represents the government.
The purpose of parliamentary or congressional votes being public is so that the politicians will vote in accordance with the wishes of their electorate or else face repercussions at the next election. The purpose of jury deliberations being private is so that each juror will not be pressured into voting in accordance with the wishes of the state, the populace, or any member thereof, but rather will vote his or her mind in accordance with the evidence and the law, and will not face repercussions for doing so.
Muffin wrote:
That makes sense to me. Thanks for presenting a compelling argument. You’ve changed my mind.
While I think that cameras in the courtroom should not only be allowed, but mandated, I think that jury deliberations need to be private. Jurors should not have any sense that anybody is looking over their shoulders during the process. Jury deliberation is sausage-making. It is messy. Sometimes deliberations can become heated and emotional. People say things that they don’t mean. People change their minds. People ask questions that they may not ask if they know a camera is watching. I think the jurors need to know that their deliberations (if not their verdict) will be protected from public scrutiny so as to allow a more free and honest process.