Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Jun 21, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Here we go. the start of a slippery slope...
It's the thin end of a wedge. This will create a precedent that will be extended gradually until there are no juries.
Am not so sure that the thin of the wedge on this occasion is all bad although sure it will grate against the British concept of fair play and all that we are currently in conflict over.
Jurors are noted for making poor calls in court: can't hear the judge, don't understand the terminology and didn't want to be there in the first instance etc...etc. The recent kicking out of the Gary Linnekar case is a good example. It does seem a little heavy handed and insensitive though to say the least.
We'll soon have the best judges money can buy.
Considering the generally cynical nature of all stickyposts, I am surprisingly in favour of this move. Having both worked in the court system and been witness to a colleague's jury service I can't help feel that it would be in the taxpayer's interest to get a result after splashing out Â£6m on a year-long trial (would you fancy serving on a jury for that long?). The fact is, some trials are horribly but necessarily complex and you do need the ability to assimilate and understand the whole picture before you can make a decision. Better that a trained judge does the job.
My colleague was forced to sit through a benefit fraud case involving seven or eight nigerians each of whom had about twenty nigerian pseudonyms spread over ten council addresses. The jury were expected to follow the blow-by-blow description of the fraud. It was not, as the DS love to say when shooting down a TEWT plan with too much audax and not enough celer, an 'act of war'.
Yes, I know this story is bound to attract the 'don't trust the system' votes but it really does make sense...as long as Neue Arbeit keep their distance.
Pigs fuelled and ready for take orf, Sir. Oops, there I go again.
Edited for sheer clumsiness.
We'll be welcoming the Diplock System shortly.....
How many high profile, complex, extremely long and expensive to the taxpayer [you and me] cases have we seen over recent years where because the people in the dock can employ the best [eg., Carmen] lawyers to bamboozle 'Joe [often thick] Average' on a jury? Think BCCI?, think Maxwell family? thik Fayed?. Complicated cases required the best judical brains and I for one would approve of non-jury trials for offences.
Like Hutton, Butler et al?
How many members of the public understand complex forensic evidence and the legality behind the suppression of evidence?
Should we not then dismiss the jury system totally?
And why one judge? Why not three as in the diplock system?
What is the average age of a High Court Judge in the UK? Their age of retirement is 75, 10 years above the rest of the populace.
The job of a judge is to instruct, I believe, he manages the court and the arguments to allow the best possible understanding by a jury. I would have to wonder, when we read so much about the sentences some of the judges in the UK hand out, is it a case of vast experience and the age of wisdom? Or hard to replace and as long as not openly senile!
Separate names with a comma.