• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A trial .... without a Jury? First time in UK history.

A judge can be more easily paid off than a jury.

Also, it's difficult to isolate a judge from certain aspects of the case whereas juries can be. What happens in mistrials? The same judge gets the case?

This is seriously effed up.
 
Orius said:
A judge can be more easily paid off than a jury.

Also, it's difficult to isolate a judge from certain aspects of the case whereas juries can be. What happens in mistrials? The same judge gets the case?

This is seriously effed up.
Click to expand...

you do know we don't live in the dark ages over here, there are systems to prevent and facilitate everything you commented on right?
 
PeteEU said:
you do know we don't live in the dark ages over here, there are systems to prevent and facilitate everything you commented on right?
Click to expand...

While I agree with this re continental Europe, at least in the core states, the OP is indeed a bad thing for the English legal system and its history of legal precedents. It's a regression, not an enlightened advance, in their context. It's merely a high-handed statement that the judiciary no longer regards the rights of the Rabble as worthy of their expense and time. The results could easily be what has happened in the U.S., where some 35% of the prison population is doing time for crimes they never committed, simply for not having the economic resources to defend themselves in court properly, while the local, state, and Federal prosecutors have effectively unlimited resources; since most of these prosecutors use their office as means up the political ladder, they are most concerned about their conviction rates, not guilt or innocence.
 
Last edited:
That being said, I still think juries are mostly comprised of morons,.
Click to expand...

May be true, but that is reflection of poor citizenship on the part of those who aren't 'morons' who do anything they can to avoid jury duty, merely because it's inconvenient for self-centered assholes. It's self-inflicted problem caused by current American cultural failures, not a reason to throw out jury trials.
 
Last edited:
It's funny going thru this thread and reading the post it dawned on me that no one actually read the OP if some of you have then you might get the reasoning for this un-usual trial.

So I suggest you all go and read the article and then make you comments. In this case the Judge(s) are doing the correct thing under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.
 
Scorpion89 said:
It's funny going thru this thread and reading the post it dawned on me that no one actually read the OP if some of you have then you might get the reasoning for this un-usual trial.

So I suggest you all go and read the article and then make you comments. In this case the Judge(s) are doing the correct thing under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.
Click to expand...

I read it, and I addressed the primary issue in my post above, as did several other posters. What is it you consider as the point being missed ?
 
bub said:
Of course, they're not "machines" (like people wanted them to be just after the French revolution), but still...there are lots of rules that ensure that he is not arbitrary.
- the laws contain the minimum and maximum sentence, so he can't condemn someone to death because he stole a car
- he has to give a motivation for his sentence
- if the condemned thinks that the sentence is too harsh, he can appeal the judgement and another judge will handle his case
Click to expand...

We have the exact same thing. The laws here prescribe particular ranges of punishments for each crime. The jury simply decides whether the person is guilty or not, and the judge handles the sentencing. The judge also has to explain the sentence. If the defendant thinks its too harsh, he can appeal.

PeteEU said:
And yet you have things like grand juries that are held in secret, and your whole appeal system is without juries.
Click to expand...

Neither grand juries nor appeals courts issue convictions, so I don't see the problem.

PeteEU said:
Grand juries are secret. The accused is usually not informed that they are being held and almost never informed about the basis for why they are being held.
Click to expand...

?

Who is being "held"? Grand juries meet as part of the investigatory process. Should the cops be forced to give you a phone call to let you know they're thinking about arresting you for dealing drugs?

Also if I remember right, cases like divorce, custody cases.. all without juries.
Click to expand...

That's because they're more administrative and are better suited to being heard by a judge. There's no possibility of jail.

It is not like murder cases are not going by jury...
Click to expand...

This is a huge armed robbery case, not some petty shoplifting. The penalties are probably quite similar to those for murder.

Gardener said:
Yes, but they are SUPPOSED to be made up of one's peers.
Click to expand...

So I get a jury of lawyers?

Scorpion89 said:
It's funny going thru this thread and reading the post it dawned on me that no one actually read the OP if some of you have then you might get the reasoning for this un-usual trial.

So I suggest you all go and read the article and then make you comments. In this case the Judge(s) are doing the correct thing under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.
Click to expand...

Yes, we're aware of that. The argument is over whether the underlying law is a good idea.
 
Picaro said:
where some 35% of the prison population is doing time for crimes they never committed, simply for not having the economic resources to defend themselves in court properly,
Click to expand...

Can i ask what your basing these stats on?
 
PeteEU said:
Grand juries are secret. The accused is usually not informed that they are being held and almost never informed about the basis for why they are being held.
Click to expand...

It's not a conviction court! Please stop and read the words I type. A grand jury does not convict. The accused knows of the grand jury and exactly why it's being held. They aren't present at the grand jury because they are not on trial at that point. The grand jury decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with an actual trial, that's it. There's still a jury involved in the actual criminal case.

PeteEU said:
As for the appeal system.. no jury, which was my point.
Click to expand...

The appeal system works very similar to the grand jury. They decide if a new criminal trial is warranted. There was a jury which got the guy imprisoned in the first place, and if the appeal is granted there will be another jury. These aren't criminal cases, the jury is part and parcel to a criminal case; we have them there as limiters to government power and to ensure a fair trial.

PeteEU said:
Also if I remember right, cases like divorce, custody cases.. all without juries.
Click to expand...

For the love of Christ. Those aren't criminal cases. Those are contractual things, no one is getting sent to jail in those.

PeteEU said:
Every country has a different legal system and legal standards. In some European countries petty crimes are done via 3 to 7 judges instead of a jury, and others it is a jury. In the end the result is no different. That the English system is slowly changing only means that the English system is evolving to accommodate changes in the amount of legal cases. It is not like murder cases are not going by jury...
Click to expand...

Criminal cases need the opportunity to be heard in front of a jury. We do so as a limitation to government power and to ensure that the laws enforced are the one's in which the People fell are just.
 
Laila said:
Dangerous, knowing our Govt. this will become common.
I don't like this at all, what the heck is going on with our system.
Does anyone even know who our law lords are and we are supposed to trust them :roll:
Click to expand...
This is why the US Constitution is on paper.
 
Laila said:
Yup ... and ours is all over the place, a mix of traditions and written rules
Click to expand...
All of which exist at the whim of Parliament.
 
Goobieman said:
All of which exist at the whim of Parliament.
Click to expand...

Not even Parliament, we are at the mercy of the party with a majority, a simple act of Parliament can change our constitution.
 
Laila said:
Not even Parliament, we are at the mercy of the party with a majority, a simple act of Parliament can change our constitution.
Click to expand...
Of course, having a written constitution is irrelevant when it is ignored...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom