Should jury system be restored?
-
that's why we dont have nonsense like the OJ simpson saga.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):who need the jury when we have our always right, knew all and all powerful CJ "protecting" us?
-
Absolutely, that's why Robert wants an elite group of people with 'mainstream views' to fill the jury bench. Problem is, I don't know who he has in mind.Originally posted by vito_corleone:what you have just said makes me think LKY was right to abolish the jury system, if u get what i mean that's why i said they "should" instead of they "have selected". there you have it..the flaw of the jury system, will an ah soh understand the difference between murder and manslaughter? d'accord? -
I believe that we should not place elitism in as a factor if jury selection is done.That would defeat the purpose of a jury of the people.
What should be needed are people without prior convictions, representatives of different races and religions and age groups. -
I want the Jury system back....
Juditial process in a Democracy should eco the voice of the people. -
HMmz reading thru, it seems that jurying might be beter brought back for selective cases.
murder and such technical cases might be beter left for the judges or skilled personel. but politically link cases might be better undertaken by a jury to convince on fairnes, though problems of how they chose would be at issue
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Singapore is supposedly a "First World" Country, with Citizens who are educated to "First World" Standards - yet you will not know who amongst the Singapore Community of "First World" Citizens - with "First World" Education - can take on its Citizenship responsibility to be a Jury to judge one's own based on one's shared values in this "First World" ?
Absolutely, that's why Robert wants an elite group of people with 'mainstream views' to fill the jury bench. Problem is, I don't know who he has in mind.
Could this inability due to the hollowing out of the Singaporean mind - to be unable to judge for ourselves despite the supposedly superior mind imbued with "First World" education ?
What sorry state of affairs have we come to after 47 years of monolithic rule ? -
A jury system may result in fewer people being sent to the gallows and elites getting punishments that fit their crimes. I am sure they would have voted to convict Took Leng How for manslaughter instead of murder. Similarly, the 4 commandoes and the old NKF board may not have gotten off lightly with what they did.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a spike in acquittal rate if the jury were reinstated. -
read today 12 june ST.there is a article on jury system.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
no matter how oppressive a government is, if a people truly want freedom and take responsibility into their own hands and be active in politics, they can do so eg. phillipines. if a people are politically apathetic cowards no matter how free an environment they live in they will never lift a finger. IMO singaporeans generally belong to the latter group
Singapore is supposedly a "First World" Country, with Citizens who are educated to "First World" Standards - yet you will not know who amongst the Singapore Community of "First World" Citizens - with "First World" Education - can take on its Citizenship responsibility to be a Jury to judge one's own based on one's shared values in this "First World" ?
Could this inability due to the [b]hollowing out of the Singaporean mind - to be unable to judge for ourselves despite the supposedly superior mind imbued with "First World" education ?
What sorry state of affairs have we come to after 47 years of monolithic rule ?
[/b] -
We all have witnessed how our judiciary has become over the years. It is now playing the second fiddle to the executive resulting in less than objective administration of the justice, equity and fairness in our society.
The influence of the executive over the judiciary is too strong. If Jury system has not been abolished, we might not have witnessed so many political suits with oppositions who are serving the citizens' larger interests being sued in court for innuendos in election speeches.
When our leader is seen to be calling people a "liar unless you sue me to prove that you are not a liar", that is the end of accountability and transparency of the judiciary. Yet our citizens through years of conditionign do not seem to mind or understand this fact.
So Jury should stay for the national purpose of safeguarding such manner of use of political powers to overwhelm anyone.
All other reasons for objecting against the jury's softheartedness or likelihood of intimidation by criminal can be resolved administratively.
If we want to establish a more accountable and transparent system of governance then restoration of jury will be good and one positive step forward. -
With backing of the prestigeous Filippino Catholic Church, which had always had an influence on the catholic political leadership, the Filippinos had an opportunity to show off their Peoples' Power.Originally posted by vito_corleone:no matter how oppressive a government is, if a people truly want freedom and take responsibility into their own hands and be active in politics, they can do so eg. phillipines. if a people are politically apathetic cowards no matter how free an environment they live in they will never lift a finger. IMO singaporeans generally belong to the latter group
The Filippino Catholic Church had also provided the leadership and infrastructure to organise such an uprising to the seeming gross injustice and sheer arrogant display of ugly political power with the assassination of Opposition Leader B. Aquino.
In the Singapore context, the Catholic Church was warned not to dabble in the political arena with the arrest of those accused to be "Marxist Conspirators" from the Singapore Catholic Church.
With the threat of the Internal Security Act at the disposal of the POWER OF ONE, Singaporeans were warned to either openly join the Political System to be participate in the Political Debate, or stay out of Politics completely.
Politics are for Politicians - as claimed by the POWER OF ONE in its attempt to defoliage the ground of any political consciousness that can provide the seedlings of support to any political groundwork by any political challengers.
Such a climate can hardly breed the kind of ground support for political consciousness amongst the Singapore Citizens.
Hopefully, the recent Elections had shown at least there is a national average of 33% of Singaporeans prepared to give their political support to a group of younger and enthusiastic political candidates - who are prepared to stand-up to offer themselves as a Credible Alternative Choice. -
A jury system will not only be expensive and unwieldy, but can result in more miscarriages of justice. As the OJ Simpson and other cases in the US illustrates, often a verdict depends on the racial and religious constitution of the jurors more than the nature of the evidence. I dread to think of the fallout if a majority Chinese jury acquits a Chinese man who appears to have raped a Malay Muslim girl. If the decision was made along racial lines, the judge will find it almost impossible to overturn the decision of the jury. The results can be devastating. Young Singaporeans may not know of the racial riots resulting from a court decision in the Maria Hertogh case:
http://www.answers.com/topic/maria-hertogh-riots
Those in favour of jury trials must be prepared to sacrifice weeks to months without pay for jury duty. That's another sacrifice in addition to National Service, although female as well as male Singaporeans of all ages will be involved. -
Which is worse :Originally posted by oxford mushroom:A jury system will not only be expensive and unwieldy, but can result in more miscarriages of justice. As the OJ Simpson and other cases in the US illustrates, often a verdict depends on the racial and religious constitution of the jurors more than the nature of the evidence. I dread to think of the fallout if a majority Chinese jury acquits a Chinese man who appears to have raped a Malay Muslim girl. If the decision was made along racial lines, the judge will find it almost impossible to overturn the decision of the jury. The results can be devastating. Young Singaporeans may not know of the racial riots resulting from a court decision in the Maria Hertogh case:
http://www.answers.com/topic/maria-hertogh-riots
Those in favour of jury trials must be prepared to sacrifice weeks to months without pay for jury duty. That's another sacrifice in addition to National Service, although female as well as male Singaporeans of all ages will be involved.
(1) Jury system with a possibility of some cases of miscarriage of justice for corruptions or due to isolated cases of intimidation or racial prejudices on the part of jurors which can be corrected administratively or;
(2) The Judge being the sole party deciding on both laws and facts subjected to influence by the executive. The breakdown of accountability and transparency of governing process is now at stake. In addition, the over-whelming use of political power to sue opposition members is a major concern affecting our ongoing development of cosmopolitan and inclusive society.
From the citizens' standpoint, it will be necessary to rethink the abolition of jury in view of the overwhelming use of political power to serve narrow interest of the governing elites. It is necessary to review whether we should choose: (1) or (2). We should look at the bigger picture and issue if we want ot progress and be fully aware of the past habit of creating worse-case law and order scenario just to frighten citizens into granting the executive more power.
Power should be used sparingly to serve the public good. Unless it is checked by internal processes which are intrinsically objective and accountable, there might be human abuse. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!! -
So, are we going to pimp the Maria Hertogh riots for more partisan gain for another 50 years?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:A jury system will not only be expensive and unwieldy, but can result in more miscarriages of justice. As the OJ Simpson and other cases in the US illustrates, often a verdict depends on the racial and religious constitution of the jurors more than the nature of the evidence. I dread to think of the fallout if a majority Chinese jury acquits a Chinese man who appears to have raped a Malay Muslim girl. If the decision was made along racial lines, the judge will find it almost impossible to overturn the decision of the jury. The results can be devastating. Young Singaporeans may not know of the racial riots resulting from a court decision in the Maria Hertogh case:
http://www.answers.com/topic/maria-hertogh-riots
Those in favour of jury trials must be prepared to sacrifice weeks to months without pay for jury duty. That's another sacrifice in addition to National Service, although female as well as male Singaporeans of all ages will be involved.
Juries are selected to ensure a fair representation of income level, racial and religious differences too.It is not a hokey-pokey process done amatuerishly.If selected for jury duty, I'd be glad to do my duty.
In any case, my calls for a jury system is for capital crimes. -
If it for capital crimes, then two things will surface with jury..
1) Depending what they have read or seen in the news, the Accuse would been pronounced guilty even before the jury sits to listen.
2) Even though as I have said that no normal Singaporean would condemn a man to the gallows, but given HuangNa's case. The trail would not last a day... for a death sentence... so it's selective, being that Singapore do have a low extreme violent crimes. However, a drug trafficking.. almost no Druggies will be hung.
Also, note that there are many prisoners who are wrongly jailed for decades to be found innocent in the US... racial profiling is rife... if you're not white in Texas.. you're likely guilty on the lethal injection seat.
It's a bad idea to put in Jury system, and I am slightly irritated to be required to serve my reservist stink for two times this year already and is expected to serve again in September for WTO ... as it is... Contrary to popular believe, my boss isn't too happy with me for it. -
If the people do not want him to be hung, why can't you respect that in a hypothetical case? Is your own personal opinion that a drug trafficker be hung be more important than a decision made by a jury?Originally posted by MobyDog:If it for capital crimes, then two things will surface with jury..
1) Depending what they have read or seen in the news, the Accuse would been pronounced guilty even before the jury sits to listen.
2) Even though as I have said that no normal Singaporean would condemn a man to the gallows, but given HuangNa's case. The trail would not last a day... for a death sentence... so it's selective, being that Singapore do have a low extreme violent crimes. However, a drug trafficking.. almost no Druggies will be hung.
Also, note that there are many prisoners who are wrongly jailed for decades to be found innocent in the US... racial profiling is rife... if you're not white in Texas.. you're likely guilty on the lethal injection seat.
It's a bad idea to put in Jury system, and I am slightly irritated to be required to serve my reservist stink for two times this year already and is expected to serve again in September for WTO ... as it is... Contrary to popular believe, my boss isn't too happy with me for it.
Let's put aside all the social conditioning that the PAP has put us through, and look at things more objectively. -
Because I might be a jury too.... approving and direct advocation is two different things.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If the people do not want him to be hung, why can't you respect that in a hypothetical case? Is your own personal opinion that a drug trafficker be hung be more important than a decision made by a jury?
Let's put aside all the social conditioning that the PAP has put us through, and look at things more objectively.
Believe me when I tell you what I have seen drugs are doing to the people.. And many cat A crimes and family abuses are indeed drug related.
A strong deterent is neccessary... if traffickers still persist knowing the well publicised risk... it's their perogative. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
can't blame the pap..the catholic church has had a bad rep throughout history till john paul 2 "cleaned it up"
With backing of the prestigeous Filippino Catholic Church, which had always had an influence on the catholic political leadership, the Filippinos had an opportunity to show off their Peoples' Power.
The Filippino Catholic Church had also provided the leadership and infrastructure to organise such an uprising to the seeming gross injustice and sheer arrogant display of ugly political power with the assassination of Opposition Leader B. Aquino.
In the Singapore context, the Catholic Church was warned not to dabble in the political arena with the arrest of those accused to be "Marxist Conspirators" from the Singapore Catholic Church.
With the threat of the Internal Security Act at the disposal of the POWER OF ONE, Singaporeans were warned to either openly join the Political System to be participate in the Political Debate, or stay out of Politics completely.
[b]Politics are for Politicians - as claimed by the POWER OF ONE in its attempt to defoliage the ground of any political consciousness that can provide the seedlings of support to any political groundwork by any political challengers.
Such a climate can hardly breed the kind of ground support for political consciousness amongst the Singapore Citizens.
Hopefully, the recent Elections had shown at least there is a national average of 33% of Singaporeans prepared to give their political support to a group of younger and enthusiastic political candidates - who are prepared to stand-up to offer themselves as a Credible Alternative Choice.
[/b] -
In the recent "Entrapment" case by CNB agents in instigating the young Doctor into committing a crime, a Jury of Singapore Citizens will probably throw out the charges, instead of the present conviction based on the SINGULAR opinion of A JUDGE - whose decision to find the young doctor guilty being restricted by legislation that allow "entrapment"; and the subsequent punishment as dictated by the Politicians who passed such a legislation in Parliament.
A jury of Singapore Citizens will be able to represent more accurately the current social, cultural and community values of Singaporeans that will influence the verdict to a crime, when legislations do not represent the same values from Singaporeans.
In a political system in which those whom Singapore Citizens have elected into Parliament to represent the interests of the Citizens and do not fulfill this responsibility - but only to represent the interest of their Political Party and the values of their Political Party Elite imposed onto the Citizens - a Jury of Singapore Citizens will correct such social-political errors and impose their verdict so as to correct the injustice of that piece of legislation passed against the interest of the Citizens.
Consider the present injustice of a legislation that require a Landlord to suffer three strokes of the cane for unwittingly provide rental of accomodation to an illegal immigrant; or that of subjecting an Employer-Director of a Company to the same punishment for employing illegal immigrants when it is the failure of the subordinate management to comply with the law.
In the present system, the judge will have to find the offender "guilty" and impose the minimum punishment imposed by the legislation - or face dismissal from his position as a Judge.
In a Jury System, the panel of Citizens need not fear of being dismissed from an occupation, and will thwart a legislation that is not acceptable by the standards of the community, by simply dismissing the charge against the accused Landlord or Employer-Director.
A Jury System will provide another check to prevent the abuse of Parliamentary Powers - that is used to legislate against the interests of the Citizens.
Perhaps this is the more valid reason of dispensing with the Jury System - the fear of challenges to authority - hence, the urgent need to have total consolidate of absolute powers to the POWER OF ONE.
The previous reasons for dispensing with the Jury System maybe valid in the 1960s and 1970s turmoil of communism and gangsterism, but with both under control and the existence of social order with a large educated population base, those previous reasons cannot be valid anymore today, nor into the future - IF Singapore is to be a First World Country. -
There is widespread misconception about what a jury does. The jury is not supposed to impose its views on whether drug traffickers should be hanged. They are to determine if the evidence presented is sufficient to convict a person of drug trafficking.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If the people do not want him to be hung, why can't you respect that in a hypothetical case? Is your own personal opinion that a drug trafficker be hung be more important than a decision made by a jury?
Let's put aside all the social conditioning that the PAP has put us through, and look at things more objectively.
Unfortunately, as in many jurisdictions with jury trials, the system fails. Jurors do not return a guilty verdict when though they are convinced of the guilt, but acquit a criminal because of his race or because the juror personally disagrees with the death sentence.
I am convinced that with jury trials, costs will increase, trials will stretch on for months and more criminals will be out on the streets.
As to Robert's question, I believe that safe streets and a low crime rate are more important. -
Yes they are important, but not at the expense of effective and balanced justice.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is widespread misconception about what a jury does. The jury is not supposed to impose its views on whether drug traffickers should be hanged. They are to determine if the evidence presented is sufficient to convict a person of drug trafficking.
Unfortunately, as in many jurisdictions with jury trials, the system fails. Jurors do not return a guilty verdict when though they are convinced of the guilt, but acquit a criminal because of his race or because the juror personally disagrees with the death sentence.
I am convinced that with jury trials, costs will increase, trials will stretch on for months and more criminals will be out on the streets.
As to Robert's question, I believe that safe streets and a low crime rate are more important.
It will take time to determine what is the contemporary acceptable level of rehabilitation and capital punishment though.We should not take a system for granted and expect it to work forever without tweaking.
If society wants it tweaked, then it will move towards it. -
Where to draw the balance between punsihment and rehabilitation is for the Parliament to decide. The court and its officials (including the jurors where there are jury trials) have an obligation to uphold the law and see that it is applied fairly.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Yes they are important, but not at the expense of effective and balanced justice.
It will take time to determine what is the contemporary acceptable level of rehabilitation and capital punishment though.We should not take a system for granted and expect it to work forever without tweaking.
If society wants it tweaked, then it will move towards it.
I have no issue with the people petitioning the government to change laws. I have a major problem with jurors attempting to be law makers. In a jury trial, one can let a defendant go free merely because he does not want that person to go to jail or be hanged, even if the defendant is clearly guilty. That is often the failure of the jury system. If the reason not to uphold the law is due to racial or religious bias, the results can be devastating.
Why can jurors do that? How is it that jurors can utterly divert the course of justice? Because unlike judges, jurors do not have to give a reason for their decision. Judges have to place on record why they have arrived at a guilty verdict, why they believe the testimony of certain witnesses and not others. Jurors do not have to do so but their decision is binding.
The composition of the jury panel has been known to affect the verdict. For example, research indicates that females gave more initial guilty verdicts for rape (78 per cent) and murder cases (71 per cent) as opposed to males (53 per cent rape; 50 per cent murder). http://www.kingston.ac.uk/~ku00596/elsres01.pdf
Should a person be judged guilty because there are more women in the jury or because he is a Malay accused of raping a Chinese woman?
No legal system is perfect...neither is the jury system. There may be a time when a jury system will be better for us, but I do not believe this is the right time. -
If we want to consider whether jury system is good to be restored, the issues to be looked out is not jury's fairness or practicality of implementation in our particular social and political context now.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Where to draw the balance between punsihment and rehabilitation is for the Parliament to decide. The court and its officials (including the jurors where there are jury trials) have an obligation to uphold the law and see that it is applied fairly.
I have no issue with the people petitioning the government to change laws. I have a major problem with jurors attempting to be law makers. In a jury trial, one can let a defendant go free merely because he does not want that person to go to jail or be hanged, even if the defendant is clearly guilty. That is often the failure of the jury system. If the reason not to uphold the law is due to racial or religious bias, the results can be devastating.
Why can jurors do that? How is it that jurors can utterly divert the course of justice? Because unlike judges, jurors do not have to give a reason for their decision. Judges have to place on record why they have arrived at a guilty verdict, why they believe the testimony of certain witnesses and not others. Jurors do not have to do so but their decision is binding.
The composition of the jury panel has been known to affect the verdict. For example, research indicates that females gave more initial guilty verdicts for rape (78 per cent) and murder cases (71 per cent) as opposed to males (53 per cent rape; 50 per cent murder). http://www.kingston.ac.uk/~ku00596/elsres01.pdf
Should a person be judged guilty because there are more women in the jury or because he is a Malay accused of raping a Chinese woman?
No legal system is perfect...neither is the jury system. There may be a time when a jury system will be better for us, but I do not believe this is the right time.
We must consider where we want our judiciary system dominated and over-shadowed by the executive to go from here. Should we allow it to move in the same direction resulting in leaders challenging critics of any perceived wrongdoings of shortcomings by calling them names or threatening them with defamation law suits which are seen to be foregone conclusions in most cases.
So citizens now in asking for review of abolition of jury system is asking the government to consider the following larger issues:-
(1) How to develop and evolve our past pro-order autocratic or pseudo-democracy into a more pro-people and pro-mass-participation accountable and transparent model that is workable and on par with the better democracies elsewhere.
(2) The autocratic and pseudo-democracy can work up to a certain extent but beyond that citizens at the lower bottom 80% are not happy as they are affected by all kinds of controls, regulations and high costs with leaders helpless and unable to upgrade to value-added technology driven model.
All other matters like how fair will be the jurors and whether they are likely to be prejudiced by race and religious beliefs are issues that can be handled administratively. Given the will there is no reason the larger issues cannot be handled and the smaller micro issues resolved in perspective. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Parliament is formed by a select group of citizens who offer themselves to be elected by the - and represent this - larger community of Citizens.
Where to draw the balance between punsihment and rehabilitation is for the Parliament to decide. The court and its officials (including the jurors where there are jury trials) have an obligation to uphold the law and see that it is applied fairly.
The legislations passed by these select group of citizens should reflect the aspirations, social-cultural-political-cultural values of the larger community.
Rightfully, in a CIVILIZED FIRST WORLD COUNTRY, it should be the larger Community of Citizens to decide on any piece of legislations - passed in Parliament by the select group - that will IMPOSE AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT the lives of the larger Community of Citizens.
This is a common practise in First World World Countries such as Switzerland, where a referendum is called to allow the Citizen to decide on any legislation that will alter and affect the existing status quo.
Your attitude seem typical of your disdain towards Singaporean ability to be more discerning.
I have no issue with the people petitioning the government to change laws. I have a major problem with jurors attempting to be law makers. In a jury trial, one can let a defendant go free merely because he does not want that person to go to jail or be hanged, even if the defendant is clearly guilty. That is often the failure of the jury system. If the reason not to uphold the law is due to racial or religious bias, the results can be devastating.
Why can jurors do that? How is it that jurors can utterly divert the course of justice? Because unlike judges, jurors do not have to give a reason for their decision. Judges have to place on record why they have arrived at a guilty verdict, why they believe the testimony of certain witnesses and not others. Jurors do not have to do so but their decision is binding.
What makes you believe that the scenario which you have described can happen ?
Checks and balance exist in Civil Society.
If your describe scenario does happen, the Judge can call for a mis-trial, and disqualify the Jury; and the Judge or the Jury can be investigated for a miscarriage of Justice.
Have you notice that the thought process differ between individuals as much as between nationalities ?
The composition of the jury panel has been known to affect the verdict. For example, research indicates that females gave more initial guilty verdicts for rape (78 per cent) and murder cases (71 per cent) as opposed to males (53 per cent rape; 50 per cent murder). http://www.kingston.ac.uk/~ku00596/elsres01.pdf
This is based on the value system developed from one's environment.
Is your referenced site of a UK survey of UK females which formed your statement be of any validity in a Singapore setting ?
Even MM LKY had been racially discerning by noting that the Mekong River form a dividing line amongst Asian communities.
He observed that there exist vibrant cultures and societal developments east of the Mekong, and more idyllic races that exist from its west bank onwards.
Can the East and West Asians think alike - and can the Caucasian and Asian minds be the same ?
Surely jury composition can be selectively balanced - either by anonymous ballot, or by selection from a pool of jury ?
Should a person be judged guilty because there are more women in the jury or because he is a Malay accused of raping a Chinese woman?
Crime is crime, it alone can evoke raw emotions made worse by the race factor - which can be moderated in the jury selection and guiding instructions from the judge.
Are we not already of the First World Status ?
No legal system is perfect...neither is the jury system. There may be a time when a jury system will be better for us, but I do not believe this is the right time.
If this is not the right time, under what conditions will it be the right time ?
Is any system perfect ?
Do we stay still and not search or experiment to find the perfect system ? -
In the news : CNA 2.7.2006: Malaysia is studying restoration of Jury Trial.
It is a right move for its judiciary by restoring Jury trial will demonstrate to the outside world it is capable of conducting political trials independently free from of any influence of the executive.
By making such a move, the Malaysia government will send a strong signal to the outside world it is being accountable and practising good corporate governance.