In the US a jury member is allowed to discuss the case after the event. US law argues that this ensures justice by keeping the jury process open and free of corruption.

In the UK jury members are not allowed to discuss the case afterwards. UK law argues that this preserves justice because no juror will be called on to justify their decision after the case, allowing free evaluation of the facts without intimidation.

Having read the views of jurors after the Michael Jackson case, which annoyed me and were understandable in equal measures, I suspect that I think the UK system is better, or at least preferable for the enforcement of the superiority of court decisions over those of the general media.

In that case jurors made comments such as:

I didn't like a gesture made by the mother so I didn't trust her (bafflingly annoying that this person considers this a good thing on which to base a legal decision over a man's life)

I think he did it but it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt (fair enough, but the gives the media room to misinterpret that as guilt on Jackson's part, when the reality is simply that it was not proven that he did the acts)

They chose the wrong people to attempt to convict him with (again, giving room for the media to speculate about his guilt)

Obviously I don't know the reality of Jackson's life, but in the end I accept the court's decision that the weight of 'evidence' is not greater than the weight of counter-testimony, and so in liklihood he is not guilty of child-abuse, more likely just of being massively stupid in regards to very select aspects of the nature of celebrity and life.

I accept the court's decision as being accurate, so of what benefit is it for the jurors to go and grab their fifteen seconds of fame by casting doubt on the authority of that decision? That might give fair treatment to the juror's right to speak on issues they are involved with, but how does that ensure fair treatment of Jackson, the man who has far more to lose from the accusations than them?

I think it is wrong for Jurors to discuss the case after it has been finished with. It just prolongs the whole thing. I mean the man has been found not guilty. He should be allowed to go about his life and pick up the pieces of his sanity. Instead he gets the very people who said to the whole world that he is not guilty saying well actually.... The case should be left alone now. It needs no further comment.

Isn't it a matter of freedom of speech though? Should it not be the juror's right to decide whether to speak publicly about the case, although given the wads of cash thrown by the media, I suspect that in most celebrity cases, jurors would.

Which leads me onto another point, is it morally justifiable to accept money from a media outlet over information relating to a case you were a juror on? Does it depend on which media outlet is concerned (i.e. is it more morally justifiable if The Times (serious broadsheet) pays a juror for information than The Sun (lowbrow tabloid))?

And lets consider the situation of Michael Jackson, recently found innocent. If his jurors were NOT allowed to talk to the media, do you think that would have affected the amount of media speculation on his verdict? Unlikely, I think.

I honestly don't think I'm leaning either way on this one.....the libertarian in me says that anyone should be allowed to do anything they want, the moral nazi in me says that that should only be the case if those things are 'good' things....

I'm on the fence too, but in no hurry to petition that we in the UK change our system.

I don't think the media would have speculated any less if the jurrors hadnt of been able to speak, and did speak about the case after the verdict was given, but the jourors being able to talk after about the case has given the media more fuel to go on. And it's not just the journaiists stating thier opnioins, i s it? - it's the journalists being able to back up thier points by what the jourors said.

Thinking of what Jonman has said, what if it were a company taken to court for manslaughter say,
the jourers decided that didnt believe beyond reasonable doubt that the company through it's neglagence, or whatever had been to blame for the person's death, so found the company not guilty. Would it be acceptable for the jureres to thten, after the case talk to the media?

Is it differant for jourers to talk after if it's one person, compared to a company?

I'm not sure, but I don't think juries are involved in cases such as corporate corruption...

Anyway, it is difficult isn't it? It seems like they should be allowed to speak, but for many reasons it still feels wrong too. Jackson has gone through the process of the trial, and found by the courts to be innocent of all the charges, so why should the media have the right to try him again by dissecting the views of the jurors?

It is fair to the jurors to let them speak, but I think it is fair to the defendant to stop the jurors from speaking. Given the balance I would go for the side of the defendant I think: they have more to lose through later character assassination than the jurors can gain.

To put it in a rather blunt metaphor, what is the greater good; giving 12 people five thousand pounds and breaking a guy's leg, or none of this happening?

As Jon points out, in the Jackson case he was likely (to continue the metaphor) to have his leg broken by the media anyway, but the jurors speaking out didn't help. Maybe they were metaphorically holding him down while the media swung the sledgehammer at his shin. You get the idea.

In Jackson's case I think being cleared of every charge could really have done a lot to change attitutdes towards him. I've seen very little in the media questioning the validity of the judgement, which might have been different if his was found guilty even on one of the lesser offences. The actions of the jurors may have put a significant dent in the chances of some form of come-back, even (or perhaps especially) if those chances weren't that big to start with. Does the benefit of them being allowed to speak outweigh the right to privacy and lack of harassment that Jackson has?

Why not? It's the difference between a criminal burden of proof (i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt) and a civil burden of proof (balance of probabilities). A criminal trial does NOT absolve the defendant of guilt, it merely proves that there was not enough evidence to the crime to convict the defendant beyond all reasonable doubt. Given this, I think it's fair to assume that people are going to be interested in the evidence presented at trial to make their own minds up, working more to a balance of probabilities.



So anyone acquitted of a crime has the right to censor what any other person says about them? Ludicrous. There's slander and libel laws to provide adequate protection in those instances.

But didn't we already know about the evidence? I thought the trial was pretty thoroughly reported...

Yes, absolutely. The evidence at the trial was thoruoghly reported, and that's exactly my point. Folk who are interested in celebrity news are going to want to make their own minds up about whether Jacko touched children where he shouldn't have done. And to do that, they're going to want to know the evidence as presented in the trial as well as any other evidence that was not admissable in a court of law. That includes the opinion of those people who acted as jurors.

To a point. We don't however, see the objects the jury does, hear the testimony or have nearly such a good chance to make up our minds. We hear a second or thirdhand account, sometimes with the bias' therein. I'm not saying the news media isn't a relevent way to get information, but I don't think we have near the advantage of the jury in a case like this. There is just too much info we might have missed, haven't seen or otherwise haven't had fully displayed in detail.

The Schiavo case springs to mind, for a recent example. As highly reported as that was, the level of bias, mis-reporting and details not being gone through was enormous. If I had just gone by what was reported, he'd have been a monster and a saint.