So many of you may have heard that the Vicky Pryce trial was thrown out of court this week due to a 'fundamental deficit in understanding' among the jury. In other words, the jury who held the key to a person's freedom, were too stupid to make a fair judgement.
For those that don't know, Vicky Pryce is alleged to have taken driving points for her MP husband Chris Huhnes, which would have resulted in her husband losing his licence. They have since split and he has pleaded guilty whilst she denies perverting the course of justice and claiming 'marital coercion'.
The judge demanded a retrial after ten questions posed by the jury highlighted a severe gap in understanding. Here are some of the most worrying:
1. Please expand upon the definition, specifically "was will overborne".
2. Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
3. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?
4. Can we speculate about the events at the time that Vicky Pryce signed the form, or what was in her mind at that time?
Now I've never been called up for jury service but how stupid do you have to be, not to understand that you are there to make a judgement purely based on the evidence given in that court room? Why would you speculate or infer anything; you have the responsibility of the rest of someone's life in your hands.
This is incredibly worrying but I have to say it doesn't surprise me when you think that these kinds of people could potentially be on the jury ...
Equally, this isn't the first time that the validity of juries has been questioned; in 1993, a group of jury members consulted a ouija board to contact the murdered victim, to make their decision ... enough said.
People are now questioning if juries are becoming less intelligent. Evidence says not, but in my opinion, more investigation is definitely needed when you look at the potential candidates. If I had these people judging me, I'd be pretty concerned. The extension to get a more 'representative' sample of the population is definitely having an effect to say the least.
Equality. Fairness. Unbiased. Yes. This is great in an ideal world but in reality, look at what you're left with when you treat everyone 'equally'. The world is not ideal, people are not of equal intelligence but in my opinion listening to what is explicitly put in front of you does not require intelligence but mere common sense and manners. There are a minority which currently don't hold these traits and this is only going to turn to a majority in years to come.
People may not be becoming 'less intelligent' but certainly 'more ignorant' to intelligence and education and this definitely needs to be addressed before allowing the likes of Jeremy Kyle regulars to determine someone's fate. It makes a mockery of the whole judicial system and you may as well leave it to Judge Judy.
I rest my case.
