Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Pattern-chaser]

You are a juror. You and your fellows have heard the case, and are now well-informed of the alleged offence, and (perhaps more importantly) the context within which it took place. You and your fellows are aware that delivering a "guilty" verdict will result in a severe punishment for the defendant. After some discussion, you and your fellows agree that:

A. The defendant is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, according to the law.

and

B. That any reasonable person would probably have done what the defendant did, in the same circumstances/situation.

Morally, what should you (and your fellow jurors) do? It appears, in this ridiculously black-and-white example, that justice is in conflict with the law. After all, if any reasonable decent person would — or even should — have acted as the defendant did, is it moral to punish them? Which should take precedence, justice or law?

[LuckyR]

The judge will instruct you to vote guilty. Juries commonly come back not guilty. I personally side with not guilty, though in my youth I voted guilty.

[Good_Egg]

Interesting question.

My understanding is that some types of case in some legal systems allow the jury verdict to include the scale of damages to be paid. So that a jury could conclude that the defendant is guilty and set a fine of one penny. Thus resolving the conflict.

In some types of case in some legal systems, the accused has the choice of pleading guilty or not-guilty. And if they plead guilty with mitigating circumstances (such that any decent person would do what they did) then there would be no need for a jury. So for the jury to be faced with this decision, the accused has already decided not to tell what the jury have come to believe to be the truth...

I know little of the detail of the practice of law, but I guess you're envisaging a system where the rules require the jury to say either "guilty" or "not guilty" with no opportunity to recommend sentence, or confer with the judge in private, or qualify the verdict in any way ?

My first thought would be that in such a system, sentencing is the role of the judge (and behind him/her the legislators who have set minimum and maximum sentences for particular crimes).

If the sentence is unjust then that is down to the judge. The role of the jury is the finding of fact. So that the jurors should do their duty by honestly reporting that they find the defendant guilty as charged. To do otherwise is to usurp the judge's role.

But I could perhaps be tempted to the view that the judge wants justice. And can parse the evidence better than I can. And therefore wants to be lied to - wants an inaccurate not-guilty verdict. If that is so, then by saying "not guilty" with enough of a nod and a wink that the judge is not deceived into taking the words literally, then nobody is deceived and justice is done.

[abuislam]

This is a complex ethical dilemma. Balancing legal obligations with moral considerations can be challenging. While the law mandates a verdict based on evidence, moral questions about fairness and context are crucial. It may be worth discussing if there are any provisions for mercy or mitigating circumstances within the legal framework.

[Pattern-chaser]

The judge will instruct you to vote guilty. Juries commonly come back not guilty. I personally side with not guilty, though in my youth I voted guilty.

In the jury deciding-room, there is no judge; there is no-one present but the jury. The jury agree their verdict in camera. That's a central fact here, I think?

[Sculptor1]

You are a juror. You and your fellows have heard the case, and are now well-informed of the alleged offence, and (perhaps more importantly) the context within which it took place. You and your fellows are aware that delivering a "guilty" verdict will result in a severe punishment for the defendant. After some discussion, you and your fellows agree that:

A. The defendant is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, according to the law.

and

B. That any reasonable person would probably have done what the defendant did, in the same circumstances/situation.

Morally, what should you (and your fellow jurors) do? It appears, in this ridiculously black-and-white example, that justice is in conflict with the law. After all, if any reasonable decent person would — or even should — have acted as the defendant did, is it moral to punish them? Which should take precedence, justice or law?

There is an interesting case which I heard of about 30 years ago.
A man was wrongly convicted, and gaoled. His friends decided to break him out of gaol and were themselves arrested for the crime of gaol break.
SUbsequently via appeal the orginal guy was found innocent.
WHen it came to the trial of the gaol breakers, althought they were obviously guilty of the offence were found innnocent by the jury since they felt the action was justified.
It was some time ago, but As I heard the News on BBC Radio 4 I have no reason to doubt the information.
It seems that the job of a jury is more than just finding the facts of the case bu also of apportionisn justifyable blame.

[Pattern-chaser]

Interesting question.

My understanding is that some types of case in some legal systems allow the jury verdict to include the scale of damages to be paid. So that a jury could conclude that the defendant is guilty and set a fine of one penny. Thus resolving the conflict.

Perhaps such a system would go some way to resolving the conflict in my example. But I don't think such systems are common, are they? I don't think they apply to my UK, or to the USA, for a start?

I know little of the detail of the practice of law, but I guess you're envisaging a system where the rules require the jury to say either "guilty" or "not guilty" with no opportunity to recommend sentence, or confer with the judge in private, or qualify the verdict in any way ?

Yes, I am "envisaging" that.

My first thought would be that in such a system, sentencing is the role of the judge (and behind him/her the legislators who have set minimum and maximum sentences for particular crimes).

Yes, and in many legal systems, that is what causes the dilemma for the jury. For the defendant has broken the law, and the judge must sentence accordingly if they're found guilty. A judge can't exercise leniency, for moral reasons, as the jury can. For the judge can be called upon to justify their decisions, while a jury cannot. In the artificial example I created, only the jury can deliver the moral and just verdict (if that is their decision).

If the sentence is unjust then that is down to the judge. The role of the jury is the finding of fact. So that the jurors should do their duty by honestly reporting that they find the defendant guilty as charged. To do otherwise is to usurp the judge's role.

The jury has the power to deliver a decision without having to explain why. Only they (in practice) can deliver the 'just' verdict.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is a complex ethical dilemma. Balancing legal obligations with moral considerations can be challenging. While the law mandates a verdict based on evidence, moral questions about fairness and context are crucial. It may be worth discussing if there are any provisions for mercy or mitigating circumstances within the legal framework.

"Legal frameworks" are based on laws, and that's the problem. Laws try to anticipate all future circumstances in which they might be applied. And of course they fail in this. There will always be unanticipated circumstances where the law does not adequately fit the real-world circumstance.

For this reason, I have always believed that laws should be guidelines (nothing more) to a court that can deal with the individual circumstances and context, as well as the offence itself. A court should be free to deliver a just verdict, whatever that happens to be. This applies whether the verdict tends toward leniency or severity. IMO, of course.

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems that the job of a jury is more than just finding the facts of the case, but also of apportioning justifiable blame.

Yes, perhaps so. Part of the point of this topic must be to consider the role a jury is required to play, and how we think a jury might morally discharge their obligations. Perhaps they might not always do what the legal system instructs them to...?

[Sculptor1]

It seems that the job of a jury is more than just finding the facts of the case, but also of apportioning justifiable blame.

Yes, perhaps so. Part of the point of this topic must be to consider the role a jury is required to play, and how we think a jury might morally discharge their obligations. Perhaps they might not always do what the legal system instructs them to...?

Legally, they may act against the will of the judge, but this would be rare, and unlikely to happen unless the case seems obviously stacked and the judge clearly wrong.
Further, their much be at least one of their number who realise the power in their hands since no one is there to remind them of that duty.

[Sculptor1]

The judge will instruct you to vote guilty. Juries commonly come back not guilty. I personally side with not guilty, though in my youth I voted guilty.

It is the duty of the judge to summarise the evidence, not to find guilt; nor it is to direct the ury to a specific finding.
Were a judge to direct a jury in such a case where doubt remains, the trail could be challenged. and the verdict found unsafe on appeal.

A judge must chose his word carefully given the conditions whereby certain findings would indicate both guilt and innocence.

[Pattern-chaser]

Legally, they may act against the will of the judge, but this would be rare, and unlikely to happen unless the case seems obviously stacked and the judge clearly wrong.
Further, their much be at least one of their number who realise the power in their hands since no one is there to remind them of that duty.

In the example, only the jury could deliver the 'just' verdict (if 'just' it is), as opposed to the legal one. And it does happen, from time to time.

Also in the example, the jury are unanimous that the defendant is legally guilty, but also that a reasonable person might well have done what the defendant did. That's the point of the topic: when law and justice seem to contradict one another.

[Sculptor1]

Legally, they may act against the will of the judge, but this would be rare, and unlikely to happen unless the case seems obviously stacked and the judge clearly wrong.
Further, their much be at least one of their number who realise the power in their hands since no one is there to remind them of that duty.

In the example, only the jury could deliver the 'just' verdict (if 'just' it is), as opposed to the legal one. And it does happen, from time to time.

Also in the example, the jury are unanimous that the defendant is legally guilty, but also that a reasonable person might well have done what the defendant did. That's the point of the topic: when law and justice seem to contradict one another.

I hope that some of the trails of recent victims of the protesting ban in the UK find sympathetic juries that would force a re-think in the draconian legislation that has incarcerated people unfairly in recent years.

[Pattern-chaser]

I hope that some of the trails of recent victims of the protesting ban in the UK find sympathetic juries that would force a re-think in the draconian legislation that has incarcerated people unfairly in recent years.

I think this has already happened, in one or two cases? Whether it leads to changes in legislation is another matter...

[Chris_winW]

I believe this example is a good one to highlight the gaps in the law and justice system, the justice system cannot condemn based on human intuition because it's flawed and prone to corruption, but then written in stone laws are too harsh to innocent people because it doesn't account for the human spirit and the situation it was put in. I believe he should be sentenced to a mild sentence to make him know that all though it is justified, it's not moral.