It says in this article that Jews and Hindus were not allowed to sit on the jury in the trial of a Muslim.
Will we see more special treatment for people of different faiths?
In India there’s an ongoing political debate about the civil code. Currently, the civil code (which regulates matters such as marriage, divorce, and alimony) does not apply to Muslims. Muslims may freely disregard the law that restricts a man to having one wife at a time, may disregard legal procedures for obtaining a divorce, and may disregard laws that mandate imposition of alimony by courts.
Oops … trigger finger.
Anyway, with the issue of the jury, I should think it’s not a matter of “special treatment.” No one has a “right” to sit on a jury owing to membership in an ethnic or religious group. On the other hand, it would be an affront to the ideals of a liberal democracy to say that one person could not sit in judgment of another solely owing to someone’s membership in a particular group. On the third hand, you have to guarantee the accused a fair trial. Can one say that no Jew or Hindu could be trusted to render a fair judgment? I don’t think that’s how it works.
You could say that in relations of a Black against White or vice versa in the US, but they’re still allowed to stand in the Jury. the persons in the jury I have mentioned should of been allowed in regardless, if there were call of unfairness they should of been looked up later on, but to just simply state ‘you can’t be in judgement of a Muslim because you happen to disagree with somethings’ is offensive.
Well, the article is 18 months old and I haven’t heard of a subsequent wave of similar decisions by judges in the UK. I’m not willing to pay for the whole article – were there some special circumstances which made the judge’s ruling justified? Or was it a single wacky judge making a poor decision (we’ve got our share here!)? In any event, this doesn’t strike me as some kind of trend that justifies speculating whether it will become regular.
Google has the entire article cached.
Ah, so it is. Thanks.
It was a very poor decision, but it appears to be an isolated one. And since the guy was convicted nonetheless there won’t be any negative ramifications if the decision is not repeated.
You guys don’t have jury selection? You just sit 12 people down and go to work? I think I like that better than our system, but an inquiry as to whether anyone knows the defendant personally at least seems in order.
Only in India…
That aside, criminal trials in the UK do have jury selection. The objection to an individual juror needs no grounds stated. It may be an entirely arbitrary decision if counsel so elects.
By contrast, the role of the judicial officer is to ensure a fair trial and a trial that has the appearance of fairness. This ancient duty supersedes the obligations to courtesy.
Consider the judicial officer’s position: How is he to avoid a trial & verdict that have the appearance of being influenced by bias. The answer in such cases is to exercise a high degree of caution. This decision follows from the routine application of those principles.
I can’t help thinking of an analogy in which a white man is accused of murdering a black man, and blacks are not allowed to serve on the jury. Surely that would be wrong; how is the present case different in principle than that?
The accused apparently called for the death of all Hindus and Jews. The intended victims of his crime might sit as jurors without the decision to disallow.
The analogy breaks there.
So a Nazi charged of murder should only be judged by white Aryans? A trial of a KKK clansmen automatically disbars black?
And how do you suppose one is to go about ascertaining faith? Is it enough to say one is not this or that, or is an explicit denial of God required.
I don’t see where you get that from.
Although several considerations are relevant, the big one in this case is that jurors are the intended victims of the crime.
That is why it was prudent to exclude them.
I don’t understand the ‘faith’ point.
The defense counsel for a Nazi or KKK would work to preserve the principle that the client be judged by a jury of her/his peers. If this meant objecting to people who were Black, White or Green then that is what would most likely occur.
This is how the adversarial legal system works. The civil law system follows a different process.
In reality, the political affiliations of an accused person are unlikely to be disclosed during a trial. So the imagined scenario is unlikely.
No, it was stupid to exclude them. What if the prosecutor alleged that the guy’s intended victims were “all loyalists”? Would it be prudent to exclude everyone who believed Britain should continue to have a Queen? What if he wanted to kill “all Britons?” Ship him outside the country?
Good questions:
It would certainly take more than an allegation. The judicial officer would have regard to the evidence. Secondly, the notoriety of the accused person would also be a relevant factor.
Considering the examples you give, take the case of Osama bin Laden. I apologise for the cliche. Nonetheless, in the event, what are his chances of a fair trial in the US?
I think it’s an example that does in fact fairly highlight the issue you raise. To wit: should we exclude everybody in some circumstances?
Although you are arguing ad absurdum, the answer is yes. In many cases, such as OBL, a jury trial is unsuitable and would proceed by judge alone.
How fair would it be in the face of Muslim clerics, it works both ways. But the thing is, there has to be a way of reducing the amount of bias one person has to make the case as fair as possible, the banning of certain types of people from a jury is a bad proposition as it treats one person with more status or favour than another in the eyes of the law.
I don’t understand the “Muslim Clerics” point.
It isn’t a blanket ban. It is decided case by case, and in this particular case, given its particular details, certain classes of person were disqualified.
The fact is people are arbitrarily disqualified from sitting on particular juries all the time. Trials are most certainly not concerned with fairness to jurors, nor should they be.
On reflection, my opinion is that once you get to the stage of disqualifying classes of person from particular juries then its probably time to abort a jury trial altogether and have the case heard by judge alone.
No need to apologize for the cliche – I was thinking of Mr. bL myself. I didn’t mention him because I don’t foresee him falling into US custody alive.
In the US, the State can’t deny a jury trial to a defendant (for real crimes). But defendants often (most often? always? I forget whether there are exceptions) have the ability to choose a bench trial for themselves. I think you’re right – if the defendant and his counsel believe that there’s no possibility of getting a fair jury pool (for whatever reason – it need not be because the alleged intended victims are the pool of people itself) a bench trial is in order. However, I believe that that should be a defendant’s decision, not subject to a State-enforced checklist or anything.
Do British defendants have the right to select a bench trial?
I recall imprecisely. The UK and US are part of the same legal system, ‘the common law’ world.
It is most likely the same procedure applies. I don’t believe there are state-enforced checklists. It is largely at the motion of the respective parties’s counsel, except that the ultimate formal decision is made by the judicial officer, acting on their advice. I don’t believe its possible for a judicial officer to elect for a bench trial of his/her own motion.
Rune is from Denmark I believe, ‘the civil law system’ applies there, which may contribute to an alternative POV.