The Jury - Murder Trial - Channel 4
Discussion
First of a new series started tonight.
It's about a real life murder trial, disguised, where two juries watch a re-enactment of an actual court case, with certain details changed so that you couldn't identify it.
Sounds like a good idea, but it didn't work out. The prosecuting counsel was wandering around the courtroom as though he was in America. The jury were discussing the case at the first break - that shouldn't happen.
Shame - good concept, badly executed. No more for me, thank you.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-jury-murde...
It's about a real life murder trial, disguised, where two juries watch a re-enactment of an actual court case, with certain details changed so that you couldn't identify it.
Sounds like a good idea, but it didn't work out. The prosecuting counsel was wandering around the courtroom as though he was in America. The jury were discussing the case at the first break - that shouldn't happen.
Shame - good concept, badly executed. No more for me, thank you.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-jury-murde...
I believe some of you are completely missing the point of the programme.
This is an experiment to show how jury members are influenced by their personal experiences and they are switching between the court room and the back room so you can see how the jury react to the information put in front of them at each stage, that way it makes it easier for the public to follow.
It is an eye opener to see exactly how we are affected by our experiences and how it influences our judgements whether on a daily basis or in a trial where someone's life is in your hands
This is an experiment to show how jury members are influenced by their personal experiences and they are switching between the court room and the back room so you can see how the jury react to the information put in front of them at each stage, that way it makes it easier for the public to follow.
It is an eye opener to see exactly how we are affected by our experiences and how it influences our judgements whether on a daily basis or in a trial where someone's life is in your hands
I enjoyed it.
I've done two stints of jury service and in some ways it mirrors my experience. Some people will discuss the day's proceedings. I never really engaged with my fellow jurors other than one who was a magistrate and like me, kept out of unofficial discussions.
As one poster commented, the level of intelligence amongst jurors varies. To be fair, a powerfully built director will have probably got out of serving. However, the Judge generally gives direction in his summing up, especially with regard to the legal definitions. One of my cases was a theft of jewellery. The definition of theft is "to permanently deprive". The defendant melted the jewellery.
This case is interesting as the guy has already admitted to manslaughter, but not murder. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
ETA five minutes on Google, it was easy to find the real case the programme was based on.
I've done two stints of jury service and in some ways it mirrors my experience. Some people will discuss the day's proceedings. I never really engaged with my fellow jurors other than one who was a magistrate and like me, kept out of unofficial discussions.
As one poster commented, the level of intelligence amongst jurors varies. To be fair, a powerfully built director will have probably got out of serving. However, the Judge generally gives direction in his summing up, especially with regard to the legal definitions. One of my cases was a theft of jewellery. The definition of theft is "to permanently deprive". The defendant melted the jewellery.
This case is interesting as the guy has already admitted to manslaughter, but not murder. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
ETA five minutes on Google, it was easy to find the real case the programme was based on.
People are missing the point of the programme. It's a social experiment to shine a light on the fallibility of the centuries old jury system, not a fly on the wall documentary.
Is it time for an upheaval? Are some people not fit to serve?
One thing that stood out for me was the fact that she had 3 children and none of them were in her care.
In this day and age, when custody courts generally rule in favour of the mother, its telling that 3 courts have decided that the children should be with their respective fathers, or that she didn't contest custody in the first place.
There's more to come about what sort of person she was, mark my words.
Is it time for an upheaval? Are some people not fit to serve?
One thing that stood out for me was the fact that she had 3 children and none of them were in her care.
In this day and age, when custody courts generally rule in favour of the mother, its telling that 3 courts have decided that the children should be with their respective fathers, or that she didn't contest custody in the first place.
There's more to come about what sort of person she was, mark my words.
Edited by CountyAFC on Tuesday 27th February 14:24
I found it very annoying but Mrs A wanted to watch it (then fell asleep)
I think there should be a clearer comments about the show not following normal court procedures.
I am not an expert but have done jury service and used to be a real fan of Kavanagh QC.
I think that if this programme is your only source of info for how a court operates then it is giving a very wrong view.
I think there should be a clearer comments about the show not following normal court procedures.
I am not an expert but have done jury service and used to be a real fan of Kavanagh QC.
I think that if this programme is your only source of info for how a court operates then it is giving a very wrong view.
Well I've watched 2 episodes and half way through episode 3 and I've enjoyed it personally.
Mainly because I firmly believe that if you smash someone's face in and kill them and admit to it, it should be murder and no other options.
Episode 2 was clever in that it somewhat started to test me and my moral compass, but ultimately it take seconds for me to get back on track because anyone that can put a hammer to a woman's head at worst a psychopath and at best an absolute liability who should be incarcerated for a long long time.
I was confused in that if I killed say a rapist or child abuser, I very much doubt I'd be able to claim it was manslaughter based on loss of control, can anyone confirm for me?
How come a man gets this option if he kills a woman? Is it the old diminished responsibility if a woman dared to cheat on a bloke?
Anyway I have enjoyed it regardless how accurate it all is, was nice to see such a broad group of humans all getting on pretty well and didn't have any gender divides or cultural divides, just normal people of all shapes, rare for TV these days...
Mainly because I firmly believe that if you smash someone's face in and kill them and admit to it, it should be murder and no other options.
Episode 2 was clever in that it somewhat started to test me and my moral compass, but ultimately it take seconds for me to get back on track because anyone that can put a hammer to a woman's head at worst a psychopath and at best an absolute liability who should be incarcerated for a long long time.
I was confused in that if I killed say a rapist or child abuser, I very much doubt I'd be able to claim it was manslaughter based on loss of control, can anyone confirm for me?
How come a man gets this option if he kills a woman? Is it the old diminished responsibility if a woman dared to cheat on a bloke?
Anyway I have enjoyed it regardless how accurate it all is, was nice to see such a broad group of humans all getting on pretty well and didn't have any gender divides or cultural divides, just normal people of all shapes, rare for TV these days...
Slow.Patrol said:
I enjoyed it.
I've done two stints of jury service and in some ways it mirrors my experience. Some people will discuss the day's proceedings. I never really engaged with my fellow jurors other than one who was a magistrate and like me, kept out of unofficial discussions.
As one poster commented, the level of intelligence amongst jurors varies. To be fair, a powerfully built director will have probably got out of serving. However, the Judge generally gives direction in his summing up, especially with regard to the legal definitions. One of my cases was a theft of jewellery. The definition of theft is "to permanently deprive". The defendant melted the jewellery.
This case is interesting as the guy has already admitted to manslaughter, but not murder. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
ETA five minutes on Google, it was easy to find the real case the programme was based on.
Aged 59 I've never done jury service. I was called up when 57 and I asked not to do it because of caring responsibilities for my late father who had alzheimers. They accepted that without question.I've done two stints of jury service and in some ways it mirrors my experience. Some people will discuss the day's proceedings. I never really engaged with my fellow jurors other than one who was a magistrate and like me, kept out of unofficial discussions.
As one poster commented, the level of intelligence amongst jurors varies. To be fair, a powerfully built director will have probably got out of serving. However, the Judge generally gives direction in his summing up, especially with regard to the legal definitions. One of my cases was a theft of jewellery. The definition of theft is "to permanently deprive". The defendant melted the jewellery.
This case is interesting as the guy has already admitted to manslaughter, but not murder. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
ETA five minutes on Google, it was easy to find the real case the programme was based on.
Anyway, interested to hear views (such as above) on how much juries chat in breaks compared to the programme. I really would hope that they arent making such unequivocal statements so early on as in part 1 (have only seen that one). But I assume the people have been chosen because they are like that. It wouldn't be very good TV if everyone just said "I'll decide at the end" like I would.
By the way, I have attended a 5 day case very similar at the Old Bailey. Very similar.
CountyAFC said:
The case will also have been chosen because it on the surface looks like a clear cut murder but when we hear more about her, I'd put money on it veering towards manslaughter.
But that is to suggest there is a valid reason for smashing a woman's face in with a hammer..... I'm 47 and had a relationship with a woman who used to get drunk and physically assault me, run out the house and come back with ripped tights and say she'd been raped, utter mental case.
I never so much as pushed her away from me let alone smash her head in.......
Kamov said:
CountyAFC said:
The case will also have been chosen because it on the surface looks like a clear cut murder but when we hear more about her, I'd put money on it veering towards manslaughter.
But that is to suggest there is a valid reason for smashing a woman's face in with a hammer..... I'm 47 and had a relationship with a woman who used to get drunk and physically assault me, run out the house and come back with ripped tights and say she'd been raped, utter mental case.
I never so much as pushed her away from me let alone smash her head in.......
As I said earlier, I've never been on a jury but I'd have thought that one potential issue to be wary of is that one piece of evidence says X happened and then another then says it actually didn't, but Y did.
Randy Winkman said:
I like to think I agree with you - that sounds really bad. I think the issue for some of us is that right from the first tea break some of the "jurors" have been saying things like that when their role is to listen to the whole trial and then make a decision. I appreciate it's a TV show but it has surprised me that some seem to be suggesting they know the verdict straight way because of their own past experiences. But I guess that's why they were picked to be on the show.
As I said earlier, I've never been on a jury but I'd have thought that one potential issue to be wary of is that one piece of evidence says X happened and then another then says it actually didn't, but Y did.
Fair enough, I guess that is the point of the show, for me I'm very cut and dried with my views so if it were a case where the man might be innocent I'd be far more willing to listen to all the evidence.As I said earlier, I've never been on a jury but I'd have thought that one potential issue to be wary of is that one piece of evidence says X happened and then another then says it actually didn't, but Y did.
If I was on the jury in this case in real life, as soon as i heard 'he admitted to smashing his wife's face in with a hammer which lead to her death', nothing coming after that would change my opinion that he is a murderer that needs to spend a lot longer than 3 years in prison....
So obviously for me what 'worried' me the most was how many of these jurors were happy to say the victim 'asked for it'....and felt sorry for the blubbering bloke.
And it also showed why there are so few rape convictions
I have big anger issues (I've said in previous posts i have manic depression) so i am aware, correct me if i am wrong, that if i lost it and killed a bloke during road rage I'd go to prison for life, but if i killed my wife i might be out in 2 years....
Kamov said:
I was confused in that if I killed say a rapist or child abuser, I very much doubt I'd be able to claim it was manslaughter based on loss of control, can anyone confirm for me?
How come a man gets this option if he kills a woman? Is it the old diminished responsibility if a woman dared to cheat on a bloke?
.
If you went out to kill a rapist or a child abuser then you most likely be convicted of murder.How come a man gets this option if he kills a woman? Is it the old diminished responsibility if a woman dared to cheat on a bloke?
.
If you discovered some body in the process of raping or child abuse and your intervention lead to the death of the attacker then it would be for a jury to decide if your action was reasonable and proportionate.
I do not believe the law makes any differentiation between a man and a woman. The law applies equally to both.
Abbott said:
If you went out to kill a rapist or a child abuser then you most likely be convicted of murder.
If you discovered some body in the process of raping or child abuse and your intervention lead to the death of the attacker then it would be for a jury to decide if your action was reasonable and proportionate.
I do not believe the law makes any differentiation between a man and a woman. The law applies equally to both.
Fair enough, it was the loss of control angle, I mean a lot of stuff can make me lose control. Anyway i have no intention of ever being in a situation anywhere near this.If you discovered some body in the process of raping or child abuse and your intervention lead to the death of the attacker then it would be for a jury to decide if your action was reasonable and proportionate.
I do not believe the law makes any differentiation between a man and a woman. The law applies equally to both.
I have since found the real case online and I find it incredible how composed and relaxed the guy who worked with him was, if I was working at a persons house and just found out they had killed someone with a hammer I'd of been running for the hills.
Personally, from reading the real case my conclusion is it was a case of "if I can't have you no one will".
Good job his jury wasn't made up of 12 of me..... i mean 12 of me in any situation would be a worry...
Kamov said:
Randy Winkman said:
I like to think I agree with you - that sounds really bad. I think the issue for some of us is that right from the first tea break some of the "jurors" have been saying things like that when their role is to listen to the whole trial and then make a decision. I appreciate it's a TV show but it has surprised me that some seem to be suggesting they know the verdict straight way because of their own past experiences. But I guess that's why they were picked to be on the show.
As I said earlier, I've never been on a jury but I'd have thought that one potential issue to be wary of is that one piece of evidence says X happened and then another then says it actually didn't, but Y did.
Fair enough, I guess that is the point of the show, for me I'm very cut and dried with my views so if it were a case where the man might be innocent I'd be far more willing to listen to all the evidence.As I said earlier, I've never been on a jury but I'd have thought that one potential issue to be wary of is that one piece of evidence says X happened and then another then says it actually didn't, but Y did.
If I was on the jury in this case in real life, as soon as i heard 'he admitted to smashing his wife's face in with a hammer which lead to her death', nothing coming after that would change my opinion that he is a murderer that needs to spend a lot longer than 3 years in prison....
So obviously for me what 'worried' me the most was how many of these jurors were happy to say the victim 'asked for it'....and felt sorry for the blubbering bloke.
And it also showed why there are so few rape convictions
I have big anger issues (I've said in previous posts i have manic depression) so i am aware, correct me if i am wrong, that if i lost it and killed a bloke during road rage I'd go to prison for life, but if i killed my wife i might be out in 2 years....
Either way, whilst I've only watched one episode I'm not with the PHers who are dismissing the programme. After one episode I think it's doing a good job of showing that the 12/24 jurors are all individuals with different life experiences that affect what they think. Mr Penguin said:
I haven't seen this one but they did something similar a few years ago and one woman said from the start "I'm going to say he's guilty because my friend was punched by her husband". Very worrying and avoiding mental jurors is a good reason to not commit a crime.
If that case was a, 'is he guilty or innocent', then that is bad, if he was guilty of of something such as punching his wife in the face then I'd be glad they ended up with that juror and hope there were 11 others like her.....I dislike how serious crimes can be bend around to be less serious due to perceived other factors, the stabby guy in Nottingham springs to mind, although that was just handled really badly in how it was covered by the media as he will spend longer incarcerated in a secure mental institution than if he was given life.
I think it was put out there with an angle he could be out in 3 years which was utter guff.... but yes he should of been murder not manslaughter....
I don't really agree with diminished responsibility, I don't care how diminished it was you still did something heinous.
I also only disagree with the death penalty because its no worse than what I have done for two dogs who became old and ill and it was the most peaceful death I've ever seen.....(in fact to be fair it is the only deaths I have ever seen...)
And i won't even tell you what i think of the James Bulger killers......
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff