Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
The problem as I see it is if you think this jury is racist then we shouldn't have jury trials. What's to say an all indigenous jury would provide fairness. Or 6 and 6. If you can't avoid nullification in this one case then you can't avoid it ever and we should no longer offer jury criminal trials.
There were conflicting stories all over the place in this trial. Of course you're not going to get a conviction when your witnesses contradict each other and change their stories. Was Gian Gomeshi innocent because it was an all Indian jury with no white women on it or because the evidence was based in lies and collusion?
The crown attorney was also using his jury picks to get rid of white middle aged farmers. Jury trials are just no good. I don't think a judge would have called him a murderer either.
|
I actually think that this is the answer. Jury trials (both civil and criminal) are, in my view, a vestige of a bygone era. I think it is very problematic that trials on important matters can be decided without reviewable reasons (and reviewing jury charges is fraught with difficulties). But I suspect attempts to legislate away the jury trial (at least for criminal matters) would be complex and subject to numerous legal challenges (ie, is it a constitutional right?)