Trial without jury that made history

[WEHGuy]

A very scary precedent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/75407...

[HD Adam]

[BluePurpleRed]

Its the start! Now you have to pay to defend yourself for motoring offences too? Also can't take pictures in public places ( unless you are Google ) ;P

Vote Conservative. They can't be much worse right?

Edited by BluePurpleRed on Wednesday 31st March 14:36

[Eric Mc]

Despite what they are saying in today's news, this is NOT the first time a trial has been conducted in the UK without a jury.

[Einion Yrth]

Eric Mc said:

Despite what they are saying in today's news, this is NOT the first time a trial has been conducted in the UK without a jury.

Would that be a reference to the Diplock courts in NI Eric?

[Munter]

WEHGuy said:

A very scary precedent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/75407...

Kind of scary. But then we have jurors who believe if you work in IT then you must be able to "hack" into government computers. And who refuse to believe technical explanations on subjects because it doesn't tie up with something they saw on CSI!

Do I want to be tried by someone who's been found to be reasonably smart or leave myself in the fate of 12 people who might have the combined IQ of a toaster....

[Einion Yrth]

Munter said:

WEHGuy said:

A very scary precedent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/75407...

Kind of scary. But then we have jurors who believe if you work in IT then you must be able to "hack" into government computers. And who refuse to believe technical explanations on subjects because it doesn't tie up with something they saw on CSI!

Do I want to be tried by someone who's been found to be reasonably smart or leave myself in the fate of 12 people who might have the combined IQ of a toaster....

I cannot vouch for the veracity of the observation but it has been said that if you're innocent you're better off with a judge and if you're guilty you're better off with a jury: statistically that is.

[Eric Mc]

Einion Yrth said:

Eric Mc said:

Despite what they are saying in today's news, this is NOT the first time a trial has been conducted in the UK without a jury.

Would that be a reference to the Diplock courts in NI Eric?

Yes - which existed for much the same reason.

[Muntu]

Given that a large percentage of the population can't even figure out how to use a sodding apostrophe correctly, we are probably better off without them being expected to follow complex issues that may be presented at trial.

[Eric Mc]

Which is a rather dangerous route to go down.

I'd prefer to have a half educated group of 12 independent individuals overseeing the judgement than a possibly biased well educated member of the establishment.

[Muntu]

Bunch of semi-literate chavs vs an educated judge?

[Munter]

Eric Mc said:

Which is a rather dangerous route to go down.

I'd prefer to have a half educated group of 12 independent individuals overseeing the judgement than a possibly biased well educated member of the establishment.

Or we could come up with a good system. Not that I know what that is. But I've not a huge amount of faith in either of the two options presented there.

[mouseymousey]

Muntu said:

Bunch of semi-literate chavs vs an educated judge?

Ah, you've done jury service as well then?

One guy I was with was deaf and could barely hear a word. Frightening.

[DocJock]

But what are the authorities supposed to do when 3 previous attempts at a trial have been abandoned because of alleged juror intimidation?

[grumbledoak]

Have to agree that this is scary, no matter how necessary it may appear in this case. Our judiciary are very much part of the establishment.

[Mojooo]

WEHGuy said:

A very scary precedent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/75407...

Would you be willing to sit as a juror on this case????


Perhaps they could have bought in 3 or 4 normal judges to act as the Jury.

[jeff m]

Trial by ones peers is part of democracy..I thought, oh well.

[Munter]

jeff m said:

Trial by ones peers is part of democracy..I thought, oh well.

What happens though if you threaten your peers to find you innocent. I understand you'd still want that if you're guilty. But does society?

Then there's the issue of is the Jury actually made from your peers in the first place?

[Dave Angel]

It's not that many years ago that only property owners were allowed to sit on a jury.

[Parrot of Doom]

I don't think that it's that big of a deal. In the 18th-century, defendants didn't even have the right to legal representation. Often, their interests would be looked after by the presiding judge. Witnesses were once judged not on the reliability of their evidence, but on their station in life. Therefore a landowner, farmer, vicar, schoolteacher, etc, would be classed as far more reliable a witness than a simple manservant.

I tend to trust the judiciary far more than I do a politician, and in this case the judge appears to have taken great pains to ensure the accused were tried fairly.