But, as I noted in my comment above, it is actually the police who elect the jurisdiction in the vast amount of cases and not the defendant. It is they, and not the defendants, who are sending more cases to jury trials.

However, the most important reason to have juries is as a guard against corruption. It’s much easier for politicians or other unsavoury characters to control a judge than to control ten random members of the public. I’m not suggesting this is the case now, but the jury system is there to guard against it. If I was an opponent of the government in a country like Singapore or Malaysia, I would feel a lot safer if they had not abolished jury trials. For this reason, I don’t think it’s valid to just look at the sentences people have typically served in the past for the crimes which are now proposed to be tried by judge alone. Juries are there to protect against a worst-case scenario.

Maybe instead, judges should be encouraged to set a lower sentence if the defendant elects a trial by judge alone – similar to what they do for a guilty plea.

It is wayy to easy to get an acquittal. Many of my worst serious violence clients walked due to the fact they chose or more often than not were limited to a jury trial.

Hey jurors in NZ are as thick as pig-shit and just want to get home.

You watched Twelve Angry Men right?

OK now apply that to New Zealand jurors and you got TWELVE STUPID PEOPLE AND A FEW MAORI CRIMS thrown in.

Under the old system of six challenges I always challenged the whities.

That is a fact.

I am re-writing The Control Sickness so you can read it there.

Merry Xmas!

Anyway, judges in NZ are overwhelmingly pro-police/crown, notwithstanding public outrage at bail/sentencing from time to time. If you want a good exposition on it from an Australian point of view can I recommend reading “The Conviction of the Innocent” by Chester Porter QC. Most of the points he makes are applicable to NZ as well.

I am a firm believer that the police should not make submissions on sentence in summary jurisdiction (which is the tradition in NZ) and judges in summary jurisdiction generally hate being told how long a sentence should be by either party, so Graeme’s idea would have to get past the judiciary first. However, Graeme’s reasoning re the jury trial is spot on and is accepted as a the real reason for having the jury trial threshold so low. Juries sometimes act mercifully in their decisions, whereas judges, with an appellate court sitting over them, usually don’t.

I suppose the other point is that in the inevitable rise in sentences that we will see over time, as the public call for tougher penalties the courts will eventually respond, then people will get towards the maximum, so current sentencing levels are not necessarily a good indicator for what will happen in the future.

As an aside, I can see the likes of Family First being up in arms about this. The right to a jury trial is the last bulwark against the full criminalisation of smacking. It might be illegal now, but if the police were ever to charge someone over a minor occasion of smacking, the “criminal” could ask for a jury trial and (probably) get an acquittal. The very existence of the jury option means the police are less likely to ever decide to start consistently prosecuting minor instances of smacking. Take that away, and you may also take the protection away.

[DPF: you should do a submission like that. I would be uncomfortable with someone serving three years in jail without a jury trial, but a sentencing indication of less than x months could allow the more minor offences to be dealt with without a jury trial]

Generally speaking, jury trials are rare or non-existant in many civil law jurisdictions. There’s just no tradition of a trier of fact being made up of the accused’s peers, a semi-judicial magistrate is more common in many european countries for instance.

The comparison is far fairer if made between common law jurisdictions, which do indeed have a long tradition of juries: England, Australia, Canada, US and NZ.

What does THAT mean? Is that another way of saying ‘murder’?

I think if it can be demonstrated that judges are as correct in their decisions as juries can be then a higher threshold makes more sense.

Breaking and entering/Burglary. First offence: 5 years. Second offence: 10 years. Third offence: Life. I am sick of these scum who have a hundred convictions for burglary getting a few months inside every now and then.

I would hate NZ go the way of professional judges. These people tend to be lefties and pass extremely low sentences. Aided and abetted by politicians of course who completely ignore the wishes of 90% of this country. As you can do as the 90% still votes for the same old tired national and/or socialists.