In The Know wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090593...jailed-6-months.html
Yes she was told not to do it,but is the system wrong to tell her to do it?
I bet most jurors search up a defendant,it's human nature to be inquisitive.
i would scrap jury service,and use qualified magistrates alongside a judge.
NO - it was not wrong to tell her not to look at a defendants past.
He is charged with the CURRENT (alleged) crime - not any past ones. He may have been guilty of dozens of occasions previously but that does not make him guilty THIS time.
Jurors should decide on the basis of the evidence (in this case) - and nothing else.
Actually ITK quite often now the past is put in front of a jury,and is done in a very inconsistent way.It really does depend on the judge,for example in my trial they kept the past out,because my false accuser had a long and nasty criminal record,while mine has always been clean.
My point was also to reflect on the sentence...6 months for googling!
The only way to keep jurors from searching is to look them away under guard,otherwise this is only the tip of the iceberg...I reckon most trials have a few jurors doing this...so back to my original idea of scrapping jurys,and using magistrates instead.
Forums 
