Can there be a more harrowing experience than sitting in judgement on a case that centres upon an issue of general and fundamental importance to the entirety of the human race?
The issue being a Contract;explicitly or implicitly entered into by the vast majority, the deal between Man and his Mate, Husband and Wife for Parenthood or Partnership.
"No spouse can be compelled to give evidence against spouse."
When the terms of such a contract are tested, instead of all talk being of "opening a can of worms" we are asked to reconsider the Wisdom of Trial by Jury.
Just to get things going: I say, come hell or high water the jury system stays!
Some thoughts from Telegraph readers...
" Trial by jury may not be perfect, but we need it
SIR - As a former Crown Court clerk, I observed hundreds of jury trials at close quarters and take the considered view that while it is not a perfect system it is better than any alternative (Letters, February 25).
At least with a jury you can say it is "our" justice. If trials were entirely run by judges and lawyers, I confidently predict that not only would common justice soon become remote from the people it is supposed to serve, but lawyers would use their skills to introduce complex legal arguments which only they, at great expense, could resolve.
Investigate improving trial by jury, but please do not seek to take this fundamental right away.
Robin Steggles
Holbrook, Suffolk
SIR - Two years ago I was called for jury service. At that time I was a lay magistrate. As such I had learnt to listen carefully to evidence and to take notes.
At my jury trial, I was the only juror who did, and this became apparent when we retired to reach a verdict.
In discussions in the retiring room I was able to show that the key witness for the defence, on whose evidence our verdict hung, was unreliable: he had contradicted himself on three occasions.
My fellow jurors decided to overlook this on the grounds that he seemed a nice chap. As a result, the accused, a man charged with a serious offence involving an act of extreme violence, was found not guilty.
Stephen Eeley
Oxford
SIR - People do not seek to serve on a jury; they are ordered to do so with scant regard to the inconvenience it may cause. The great majority will nevertheless do their very best to carry out their duty as conscientiously as they can.
The jury in the trial of Vicky Pryce may have had some shortcomings, but to be criticised by the judge in the way they were when they could not answer back leaves a nasty taste.
David Langfield
Pyrford, Surrey
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9893190/Environmental-risks-of-the-shale-gas-industry-need-constant-monitoring.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
