ForumGarden

Should the identity of jurors in a criminal trial be made public or kept private?

RedGlitter;635900 wrote: Should the identity of jurors in a criminal trial be made public or kept private?


private

RedGlitter;635900 wrote: Should the identity of jurors in a criminal trial be made public or kept private?


absolutley private..

Private. I was on a murder trial for a gang banger. No one but me was willing to be foreman. They were afraid of retribution.

again maybe changed mind

agree unless im on trial

private

RedGlitter;635900 wrote: Should the identity of jurors in a criminal trial be made public or kept private?


Given the nature of the Jury System and the Selection Process, it would be near impossible to keep their names private. Too many people are involved in the process itself, plus the family members of the jurors would have to be sequestered.

I'm thinking that if their names weren't public then this would lead to a much heavier consequence in that the judicial system could be more easily manipulated thus creating more harm than good...

I do see the logic in having their names private, but for the sake of an efficient judicial system I would have to think that the freedom of the press does actually limit the amount of corruption...

Isn't that a matter of public record, at least after the trial is over? I mean, in some cases, juries are sequestered, but that's more to limit their bias from media reports etc., but generally jurors are known.

:-3

more reasons I'd never be a juror.........:-3

I'm thinking that for my own safety I would want to remain nameless...but then there's that thing about knowing who accuses you, well shouldn't there be a policy on knowing who is judging you as well...?

I'm curious about this - about whether or not they are kept private. I don't think it is here. I mean, anyone can stroll into a court room during a trial, unless the judge has ordered otherwise, so wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

Mystery;635961 wrote: I'm curious about this - about whether or not they are kept private. I don't think it is here. I mean, anyone can stroll into a court room during a trial, unless the judge has ordered otherwise, so wouldn't that defeat the purpose?


I was thinking similar, as to just how private can you be? If you serve on the jury you are in view of anybody.

RedGlitter;635900 wrote: Should the identity of jurors in a criminal trial be made public or kept private?


In the UK your name when on Jury Service will be known, but AFAIR that's it. There's some general information at:

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/docs ... e_0405.pdf



Jurors are rather anonymous, in terms of their overall function. They just say "guilty" or "not -". Many things are forbidden, as detailed in the above URL.

On the few occasions where there's been a culture of intimidating juries in the UK, judges have been known to handle trials without them at all (a practice called Diplock court) rather than allowing the jurors to be anonymous.

"Diplock courts were a type of court established by the British Government in Northern Ireland in 1972, in an attempt to overcome widespread jury intimidation associated with the Troubles. The right to trial by jury was suspended and the court consisted of a single judge. The courts were controversial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts