Trial without Jury
Wizard
18 Jun 2009
http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/8106590.stm
As you can see, the Lord Chief Justice has confirmed that a case can be heard by a Judge alone. The excuse, 'jury tampering'. It seems to me that finally the pressures successive Home Secretaries have buckled our supposed "independent" bench into relenting.
From where I stand I see this a very dark day for English liberties. What do others think?
As you can see, the Lord Chief Justice has confirmed that a case can be heard by a Judge alone. The excuse, 'jury tampering'. It seems to me that finally the pressures successive Home Secretaries have buckled our supposed "independent" bench into relenting.
From where I stand I see this a very dark day for English liberties. What do others think?
Dauth
18 Jun 2009
Wizard, on 18 Jun 2009, 12:21, said:
http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/8106590.stm
As you can see, the Lord Chief Justice has confirmed that a case can be heard by a Judge alone. The excuse, 'jury tampering'. It seems to me that finally the pressures successive Home Secretaries have buckled our supposed "independent" bench into relenting.
From where I stand I see this a very dark day for English liberties. What do others think?
As you can see, the Lord Chief Justice has confirmed that a case can be heard by a Judge alone. The excuse, 'jury tampering'. It seems to me that finally the pressures successive Home Secretaries have buckled our supposed "independent" bench into relenting.
From where I stand I see this a very dark day for English liberties. What do others think?
I'm with you here Wiz, it is a very bad thing indeed.
Though a jury of my peers shouldn't really include a burger flipper from Maccys. I find this the most annoying thing in the system.
CodeCat
18 Jun 2009
There is no Jury in the Netherlands, so I'm not really sure what the advantages are of having one.
Golan
18 Jun 2009
I actually see this as something good. In short, a jury usually holds inadequate knowledge about the juristic matters and is thus unable (or at best unlikely) to come to a neutral and legally reliable decision.
If a judicial systems really needs a second body as an independent control mechanism then it's already corrupted beyond the point where it can be seen as enforcing the laws of a society.
If a judicial systems really needs a second body as an independent control mechanism then it's already corrupted beyond the point where it can be seen as enforcing the laws of a society.
Dauth
18 Jun 2009
The problem is the many judges are selected. They are nominated by the Government, the jury was the method of blocking corrupt Government-Judge relations.
Golan
18 Jun 2009
But it's the state (i.e. government and courts) that create and guarantee your rights in the first place - if the state is "corrupted" beyond the point at which it can control itself, then your rights are void as there is no sufficiently powerful legal body willing to guarantee them. The jury in this cases would be in no position to help you regain your rights in face of such a state, as it itself is only legitimated by the state.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the thing you are actually trying to communicate - the jury is powerless when no one of the officials gives a damn about it. If this case is what you make it out to be, then it's the perfect example why a jury cannot guarantee your rights. Thus, it's but an alibi excuse to present a state as protecting your rights regardless whether it does so or not.
Edited by Golan, 18 June 2009 - 22:39.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the thing you are actually trying to communicate - the jury is powerless when no one of the officials gives a damn about it. If this case is what you make it out to be, then it's the perfect example why a jury cannot guarantee your rights. Thus, it's but an alibi excuse to present a state as protecting your rights regardless whether it does so or not.
Edited by Golan, 18 June 2009 - 22:39.
