Geneva Votes to Abolish Trial by Jury

[perplexis]

Um, while I don't disagree with your sentiment on the need for a jury, pk, I am not sure what French president of the European Commission has to do with it?
Also, as noted earlier in the thread, seeing the jury as a basic cornerstone of justice appears to be quite an Anglo-Saxon thing, which isn't replicated globally.
I didn't know that before, and learning shit like that is why I still love Urban.

 

[fubert]

I reckon the defendant should have a choice between trial by judge and trial by jury. Why not let them choose?

As for the Swiss system, well I lived in Geneva for 8 years, and a friend of mine was a judge there for 10 years, but I don't know a thing about their legal system

Tell me about it. We lived there for five years. I still work 50% Switzerland 50% Netherlands.

Friend of ours is a judge. You get judges for everything.

Another friend is a lawyer. The lawyer gives legal advice like "it depends on the mood of the judge on the day".

Which is nice.

Fucked up country.

 

[perplexis]

Tell me about it. We lived there for five years. I still work 50% Switzerland 50% Netherlands.

Friend of ours is a judge. You get judges for everything.

Another friend is a lawyer. The lawyer gives legal advice like "it depends on the mood of the judge on the day".

Which is nice.

Fucked up country.

Thanks people. This is the kind of positive thinking I need to make my next 3 years here fun.
I'm pretty sure it is a fucked up country. But then, where isn't?

 

[kyser_soze]

The most crucial role for a jury is not to vote on judgement, but to bear witness to proceedings.

Any attempt to weaken this basic legal obligation should be resisted at any cost.

Yes. Any cost.

Leaving aside the tiny factette that Switzerland isn't a member of the EU and as such this change has nothing to do with the UK...

 

[Azrael]

Leaving aside the tiny factette that Switzerland isn't a member of the EU and as such this change has nothing to do with the UK...

I recall that Switzerland's introduction of a unified justice system was motivated by a desire to integrate with European norms (they certainly aren't immune to making themselves compatible with the EU, even if they're not members). I might be wrong though.

This depressing bit of "modernization" does raise uncomfortable questions about the primacy we place on democracy. What's preferable: Switzerland, probably the most democratic state on earth; or countries with jury trial? I go for the latter.

We worship the universal franchise beyond reason and proportion. Democracy is an essential liberty, but it's not the be-all and end-all. If forced to choose, I'd go so far as to say that I'd rather live in a country where I couldn't be locked up without the unanimous judgment of my peers than one where I had the vote.

 

[Jazzz]

Nobody was looking to suppress juries, but the electorate has understood that this institution is incompatible with the new penal procedures which will come into force throughout Switzerland in 2011. We can now put in place an extremely important reform of the justice system without difficulty or acrobatics

This strikes me as an extroardinary statement. We need juries. They stop police states.

 

[kyser_soze]

Not in Switzerland they don't. Someone pointed out that it's 26 small countries, well I'd say that however, many centuries of peace among them is testament to the success of the settlement they've arrived at.

 

[SpookyFrank]

From what I know of the Swiss federal democracy it seems like a step in the right direction compared to the bullshit 'representative' democracy we have in this country but I'd have serious reservations about rescinding trial by jury. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's a dreadful way to dispense justice but all the others are much worse.

«Personne ne voulait la suppression du jury, mais les électeurs ont compris que cette institution était incompatible avec la nouvelle procédure pénale qui entrera en vigueur dans toute la Suisse en 2011. Nous pouvons maintenant mettre en place une très importante réforme de la justice sans difficultés et sans acrobaties.»

This may well be true, but it certainly leads to questions about what these new procedures amount to. The logic seems somewhat backwards, you'd have thought that if reforms were incompatible with trial by jury then it would be the reforms themselves that should be questioned rather than the institution they apparently conflict with. IIRC the canton of Geneva is something of an anomaly even within Switzerland in terms of legislation, it will be interesting to see whether other cantons follow suit.

You only have to look at cases in this country where the role of the jury has been diminished (I'm thinking recently of the De Menezes inquiry where the judge all but dictated the verdict beforehand) to see that it is only public scrutiny that can keep the government and the judiciary independant from one another.

 

[Azrael]

The logic seems somewhat backwards, you'd have thought that if reforms were incompatible with trial by jury then it would be the reforms themselves that should be questioned rather than the institution they apparently conflict with.

The logic is a fig-leaf. Governments don't like juries because the result is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Reasons of cost and efficiency are a pretext, nothing more.

When Labour was trying to abolish the option of juries in either-way cases, it said Crown Court trial cost £20,000 minimum, so access to juries had to be limited. People took it at face value, instead of asking if the jury itself cost the money, or some other element of Crown Court trial. Jury compensation for minor cases doesn't run past £200. The rest is in all likelihood blown on lawyers' fees. Jury trial could have taken a different form, but the obvious alternatives, reducing cash for lawyers or reintroducing the Quarter Sessions (magistrates' courts with juries), weren't even raised.

I'm sure Switzerland is nowhere close to being a police state, and its mixed-panels will acquit a reasonable number of people. Its system of democracy is ancient and puts ours to shame. But the accused in a Swiss court will now be at the mercy of the state, and that's never acceptable, however benevolent a face it takes.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The logic is a fig-leaf. Governments don't like juries because the result is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Reasons of cost and efficiency are a pretext, nothing more.

I totally agree. No justification for this change would be good enough for me, but it seems as though the one they've come up with is especially feeble. Which is why it seems strange that this has been passed via a referendum.

 

[Azrael]

Which is why it seems strange that this has been passed via a referendum.

As I don't know how the campaigns were run I can't comment in particular; but in general it doesn't surprise me. The majority often give little regard to liberties, not realising their importance unless it affects them directly. Polls taken in England a few years back showed a majority supported interrogating alleged terrorists for a month without a lawyer present!

Democracy can destroy liberty. Uncomfortable thought I know.