Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Do you not think a trial 'not' by peers, or peers who go through some form of 'training' is open to contradicting the legal system of being fair and balanced?
Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction
- Thread starter abbviper
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,181
- Location
- Rollergirl
I'm not sure what the implication of inverted commas encasing the word training is with your previous post? I think it's immensely important to have a jury of some sort, we couldn't leave it to one individual (judge). However, pulling 12 randoms off the street doesn't strike me as the best way to go about it.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Training was in inverted commas because you are bordering on training unconscious bias is deeply unpopular on GDs hive mind. The 12 'randoms' do go through some prescreening and any significant bias' must be declared and then they are sent on their merry way. Beyond that it is sensible training in the form of guidance. What training are you expecting?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,181
- Location
- Rollergirl
I have no idea what that means?
The training I am referring to is basic foundation knowledge of the law for starters. Then I would expect training on how to spot bias (particularly our own unconscious bias). Some courtroom experience would surely be beneficial.
A person's freedom or finances rely on the jury getting it right, therefore it strikes me as really obvious that the jury should be properly prepared for the decisions they have to make. The fact we've did it this way for a thousand years probably explains why we think it's "normal" to do it the way we are. The other blockers are obviously logistics and cost.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
That's a dark path.....
Violent protest is political though. It's just not the type of politics you recognise.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-violent-protests-change-politics/amp
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,181
- Location
- Rollergirl
It certainly isn't. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill can't come quick enough IMO because things are clearly getting out of hand.
Colour my views simplistic, but to me it makes no difference if a bunch of malcontents break the windows and/or spray paint on a Council flat, or a million pound residence in Belgravia, it’s malicious damage whichever way you slice it, and illegal.
I've always refused jury duty. There's no way I'm contributing to a decision that could cost someone their freedom when I have absolutely no training or expertise.
If I'm as silly as you think (well presented counter argument, BTW), would you want me on the jury in your trial?
Kudos to you Dirk if you really managed to get out of jury duty.
When I was called I pulled all kinds of strokes to try and get out of it, initially replying to the Jury Summoning Bureau that I believed that everyone is entitled to a second shot, and I’d be hard pressed to find anyone guilty.
They sent a sarcastic reply, which could be condensed to, “You come to us, or we’ll come for you.”
Then, when I discovered the paltry per diem that they’d lavish on me for doing my civic duty, I paid my accountant for a letter, stating my daily earnings as a Black Cab driver, and I said, “match that, and I’ll turn up.”
Some wag in the Jury Office replied that I was wasting my time as a taxi driver, I could earn a fortune as a comedian.
I gave in and did my stint at Southwark Crown Court.
This is what happens when you have a jury.
It is an expense for a safeguard against over reaching law system by essentially allowing small controlled mob rule.
Nothing is perfect, it will fail from time to time.
In my eyes it is a worthy expense to keep the juridical system in check.
I’m not sure theres anything to be done that would not damage our ability as people to keep juridical branch in check.
It is an expense for a safeguard against over reaching law system by essentially allowing small controlled mob rule.
Nothing is perfect, it will fail from time to time.
In my eyes it is a worthy expense to keep the juridical system in check.
I’m not sure theres anything to be done that would not damage our ability as people to keep juridical branch in check.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
Juries may not be perfect but I'd rather have the UK legal system than any other country's system. I love that our juries are untrained, unqualified and occasionally crazy. I love that anyone can be called for jury service. I love that our judges don't stand for election but are in positions for which they have worked and are qualified. I love that the highest judges are part of our system of government despite being unelected. I love that free legal defense is available (although I wish they were better - based purely on seeing one such do an appalling job).
Most of all, I love that it makes some people uncomfortable - may such people never get their way.
Most of all, I love that it makes some people uncomfortable - may such people never get their way.
The jury system is hopelessly flawed. The simple truth is that average juror doesn't understand the law, and is horribly biased...or completely nuts. I was on a jury once and there was one elderly woman who was absolutely adamant that the defendant was guilty because his eyes were to close together. I really am not joking, she gave that as the principle reason she felt he was guilty and she would not back down.
Juries should be abandoned in favour of a system similar to the Magistrates.
Juries should be abandoned in favour of a system similar to the Magistrates.
You wouldn't if you were the accused. It's akin to being Schrodinger's cat.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Ah the system whereby only those with countless hours of 'free' time can apply. That's a real representative view of society
Ah the system whereby only those with countless hours of 'free' time can apply. That's a real representative view of society
We don't need or want a representative selection of society making judgements, what we want is a cold impassioned interpretation and implementation of the law based on fact, rather than an overactive imagination of some paranoid grandma who hasn't left her flat in nine years.
We don't need or want a representative selection of society making judgements, what we want is a cold impassioned interpretation and implementation of the law based on fact, rather than an overactive imagination of some paranoid grandma who hasn't left her flat in nine years.
... and then some judge, general or politician changes the law... and makes <your favourite thing> illegal...
It's precisely this system which has led to the fairly benign laws we have now. Disable the safety mechanisms and who knows where it'll lead.
...some ditsy hairdresser claiming magna carta allows her to open up in the midst of a global plague or the right to trial by combat or fire or something. Curling tongs at dawn.
She was one of twelve if the other 11 thought the defendant was innocent he would have walked. Being judged by a jury of your peers is vastly preferable to being judged by precise interpretation of badly formed laws by an overly academic judiciary.We don't need or want a representative selection of society making judgements, what we want is a cold impassioned interpretation and implementation of the law based on fact, rather than an overactive imagination of some paranoid grandma who hasn't left her flat in nine years.
Yes this verdict is odd but it stands out because it is odd very very few jury trials result in verdicts that are out of the ordinary and a few protesters being let off for some minor criminal damage is a price worth paying for having one of if not the best judicial system in the world. Independent of politics interference and giving everyone an opportunity to be judged by a panel of real world people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,181
- Location
- Rollergirl
You have no way of knowing the character or competency of the other 11.
On balance of probabilities it is unlikely they were all Crazy old ladies who used eye gap to determine guilt.
The current jury system does not regularly throw up anomalies so the idea that one odd but reasonably predictable case should trigger a radical overhaul of something that has underpinned our democracy for generations is barmy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,181
- Location
- Rollergirl
Serious question here, I'm not trying to be obtuse...
What statistics are there available to tell us whether a jury was competent other than "on balance of probabilities" which let's be honest, could mean anything and apply to almost everything. My understanding is that the process is private, so how is it audited?
Furthermore, the old lady example is extreme in the sense that it was obvious to everyone. However, taking the climate case as an example, it's highly unlikely that the jurors had no prior knowledge of the protests. If the majority in the room are sympathetic to that particular issue then there is literally nothing in place to prevent their bias being exerted other than their own honesty. They actually might not even be aware of their own bias.
We now live in a society where these events are broadcast in every detail on social media, with a hell of a lot of people taking a polar view one way or the other. The notion that a jury of our peers from this particular society would be unbiased with regards to such a massively publicised event/issue is frankly ridiculous.