Cessna571 wrote:Nope, I don’t get it tbh.
I thought the point of the jury was to decide if somebody had done something
I thought the law was fixed and the jury decided if they did it.
In this case, the defendants admitted they did it, and there was even proof they did it.
Can a jury let someone off a murder if they say “yep, I murdered him, and there’s even film of it”.
The jury can say “well, he obviously did it, but we are finding him not guilty”
I suppose they can if they want?
I never considered that, even if there is proof someone did something, it doesn’t mean they are guilty!
So, what are we saying?
Slave traders unacceptable to jurys, paedophiles acceptable to jurys ?
Not quite. The role of the jury is to decide whether someone is guilty of the charge or not. In many cases that turns out to be, on a practical level, deciding whether they performed a particular act or not. A judge may even direct them quite explicitly on this, and it is not unknown for a 'finger-wagging' judge to let it be not-so-subtlety known that they expect a guilty verdict. Remember that a judge can direct to acquit, but not to convict.
Juries have their responsibilities explained to them in detail, but their rights (to ignore the judge's summing up and 'route to a verdict' guidance and decide whatever they like for whatever reason they like) are somewhat glossed over - mainly because the legal system does not look to encourage jury nullification. Jurors swear an oath to reach a verdict only on the facts, but they can do otherwise if they wish and there is no possible sanction - it is a matter for them and their consciences.
There is some debate in legal circles whether or not juries should have their rights explained to them more explicitly. Similarly there is debate on whether they should be asked to provide a reason for their verdict. On this second point I tend to say absolutely not, because why do you want the reasoning if not to (a) challenge it, or (b) establish precedent, which jury verdicts don't do anyway.
The answer to all your questions is "yes", but the questions are largely irrelevant if you accept the premise that they can return any verdict they wish for any reason, without explanation and without challenge. For your last point, who knows what will prove 'acceptable' or not to any given jury in the future - that's the point of the system.
The right to a trial by a jury of your peers, and the freedom that jury has from interference, is an important safeguard against a tyrannical state oppressing citizens via the legal system. We've evolved this situation rather by accident, unlike the Americans who have it by design. Prior to Bushel's Case there were myriad examples in this country of the state (and/or the Crown) using the legal system to enforce its will and oppress people. In countries which do not employ trial by jury, once the state decides to screw you via the legal system then you are done for because the question of your guilt or innocence is decided by a government employee.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.