http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1588246.stm

Yes, Dawkins is seriously advocating abolition of jury trial. Seems like the Brits are a little more lukewarm on jury trial than we are.

So juries won’t have as much of a reason to think about public opinion, and would therefore clearly be preferable in high-profile hot button cases in states where judges are elected.

Now. I happen to think that Dawkins’ argument is somewhat silly. If juries simply stated their views out loud without deliberation, Dawkins may have a point - a wavering juror may be pressured into agreeing. But these doubts would generally be aired during deliberation. And let’s face it - no judge is perfect; the likelihood that a single judge catches a small hole in the prosecution’s case is probably lower than the likelihood that one of the twelve jurors catches it and airs it during deliberation.

I also have issues with arguments that juries will help prevent injustices, since one could probably come up five or six times the number of cases where the juries actively promoted injustices (e.g., black men on trial for “raping” white women).

That being said, I agree that juries are very problematic, but I have the same opinions about them that Churchill had about democracy. Especially when you add the safety valve of the appeals system, which prevents the egregious errors of juries.

Have you read anything from the Fully Informed Jury Association? As you say, nullification is a right that has to be spread out of court these days, and they’re doing a lot of work to do just that.

I could go for the no deliberations idea. How certain are people that anything good comes out of deliberations? Plus, the lack of deliberations would allow jurors to nullify without risking reprisals by the court for what they say in deliberations. (Google the name Carol Asher for a recent example.)

For instance, if one is accused of molesting a child, one would want to be tried by a judge whether or not one is innocent, because juries will almost always convict, even without any evidence at all. In that case, judges are a check on the ignorance, prejudice, and capriciousness of the public. Either the judge throws out the case, or else the defendant is convicted.

In any case, the judges disallowing nullification arguments in the Scopes trial is always the case now. If a lawyer mentions nullification or even hints at it, pretty much every judge these days will instantly declare a mistrial, the lawyer is possibly going to be held in contempt of court, and there will be talk of disbarring him. In addition, if any juror or the bailiff mentions to the judge that some juror mentioned jury nullification during deliberation, the verdict will be set aside and the trial will be declared a mistrial. Jury nullification, in other words, is a right that has to be spread outside court.

As for Dawkins, I have great problems with the jury system myself. My biggest problem with it is that only the lower classes serve on juries. Most middle and upper class people easily find excuses to get out of jury duty and so juries inevitably consist of the most poor, uneducated members of society.

Personally, I say why have deliberations at all? If it would be better to split the jury into three groups, why not split it into 12. Following the trial, have every juror cast his vote, without speaking to anyone else. He is free to deliberate, alone, and when he is read, he submits his vote to the bailiff. The bailiff collects the votes, and, if a single juror votes to acquit, the defendant is acquitted.