UK no-jurys plan

[lancelot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6472755.stm

Very interesting case this one...not sure where I stand really.

On one hand I support a move that stops real criminals getting off on a technicality but on the other hand if the UK wants to keep up this 'we are a vibrant democracy' charade then Im not sure a move that removes quite a serious component of the justice system is a good idea either... :juggle2:


Any thoughts peeps?

[Whacker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6472755.stm

Very interesting case this one...not sure where I stand really.

On one hand I support a move that stops real criminals getting off on a technicality but on the other hand if the UK wants to keep up this 'we are a vibrant democracy' charade then Im not sure a move that removes quite a serious component of the justice system is a good idea either... :juggle2:


Any thoughts peeps?

I can't speak for the UK, but in general I believe that every human being has a complete, total, unalienable right to 1. due process, 2. a speedy trial, and 3. trial by his or her peers. Period. No exceptions. This is the exact reason that I think Guantanamo Bay is a @#$@#($ abomination and the "Speeding Ticket System" in New York (basically one cannot fight a speeding ticket given by a certain system in an area of New York) are mockeries of the justice system.

[drone]

This highlights exactly the need for two separate and independent houses of Parliament. A streamlined government is a bad thing. You may not like them and their selection process, but the Lords did a good thing here. :bow:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Too be honest, I've never been fully convinced of the merits of jury trials. I understand the whole check on state power thing, but I think if I was being tried for a crime, I'd want the verdict to be decided by someone trained in the law, who had worked hard for years to achieve his position, and who could be held accountable for his decision, i.e a judge, as opposed to 12 people pulled off the street, who could well be prejudiced, overly-emotional about the crime I was being tried for, or just plain stupid.

I believe that the French use juries far less frequently than we do, and they seem to do ok.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Jury trials are definitely more unpredictable than bench trials, for many of the reasons BKS stated. Highly emotional cases, such as child rape, may tempt the jury to decide the case on personal feelings, and not conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Jury's can also be swayed by prejudice or inability to understand statistics or scientific evidence.

[Slyspy]

The type of trials being discussed here are, for example, complex fraud or money laundering cases. It is believed that, in many such cases, the jury is unable to understand enough of the case to be able to make an informed decision. Because of this, it is feared, many guilty parties get away with it.

[Sjakihata]

We don't use the jury system in denmark. But it isnt one judge either, I believe it is three - each having some kind of speciality.

[HoreTore]

Don't you have one trained and 2 layman judges in Denmark?

[Sjakihata]

Yeah, i don't know the exact composition and I sure it can vary depending on the cases. I also believe that in some extremely rare cases a jury system can be introduced.

But essentially you are right, some judges are professionals while others are laymen. The ratio of the combination I am unfamiliar with.

[doc_bean]

We only use jury trials for 'heavy' crimes like murder (and I think only murder actually), the end result seems to be that judges get a bit jaded and pronounce rather weak snetences, though that might actually be done because the justice department asks for it.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The type of trials being discussed here are, for example, complex fraud or money laundering cases. It is believed that, in many such cases, the jury is unable to understand enough of the case to be able to make an informed decision. Because of this, it is feared, many guilty parties get away with it.

I believe another issue is the sheer length of some of these trials. Can you really ask someone to be on jury duty for a trial that can drag on for years?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Jury trials are definitely more unpredictable than bench trials, for many of the reasons BKS stated. Highly emotional cases, such as child rape, may tempt the jury to decide the case on personal feelings, and not conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Jury's can also be swayed by prejudice or inability to understand statistics or scientific evidence.

I disagree with BKS. If accused I would rather any decision about guilt or otherwise was given by an ordinary person (or better still 12 ordinary people) coming to the case fresh; someone who has heard similar cases hundreds of times before might well think "ah - this is defence number 3 in this type of situation - guilty just like all the others were.

You can't play down the protection from oppression that juries provide either. If ordinary people won't convict it is harder to use the law to beat down opposition.

Judges, too, can be swayed by emotion and prejudice and their record with statistics and scientific evidence is flawed too. In Sally Clark's trial Roy Meadow's use of statistics was obviously wrong that a reasonably bright 14-year-old should have spotted the error. Unfortunately for her the prosecution, judge and defence, each one very well educated and supposedly intelligent, all failed to see how wrong his analysis was. Result: Sally Clark spends years in jail. Doing away with juries would hardly help.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, i don't know the exact composition and I sure it can vary depending on the cases. I also believe that in some extremely rare cases a jury system can be introduced.

But essentially you are right, some judges are professionals while others are laymen. The ratio of the combination I am unfamiliar with.

Well, in the lower court system here in Norway, we have 1 educated judge, and 2 laymen. I doubt it would be very different in Denmark, we all like to look the same in Scandinavia...

The crimes I know get a jury here, is hard organized crime, murder and rape. Although, interestingly, we're debating whether to drop the jury in the rape cases, because they tend to label the victims as filthy whores who got what was coming...

[ShadeHonestus]

I did some research for a for a friend of mine not long ago and was involved n his case. The bench rulings such as are the case in Iowa custody cases are some of the most ridiculous you'll find anywhere. The lobbying by women's groups is incredible and the political climate is one where judges needed new law to even consider males on equal footing, although still not seen in its rulings.

When it comes to crime, definitely would take jury over bench.


I'll give you a brief instance of crime related bench hearing rulings, and its subsequent effect on a non-criminal bench trial to give you a taste.

A friend of mine's wife had become neglectful of their children, often abusive, started drinking, never coming home etc so he went to a family counselors and mediation center and they decided on separation with her not accepting mediation for custody they would have to go to trial for that and divorce. First there would be a temporary custody hearing and so on and so on. Well, 4 days later, she was not happy with the pre-hearing visitation agreement so as recorded on the phone she said, "well there is one other thing I can do." The next day a sheriff knocked on my friend's door saying that he had an order for relief from domestic abuse. By 1pm that day he had to turn over his place of residence, his car, his children to this woman at the police station. He called me shortly after and I accompanied him along with the case worker working on his wife's abuse of the children, we were in contact via phone with attorneys in the area. Iowa law states that no evidence be needed, no quid pro quo, nothing...when a woman says she has been abused a judge HAS to sign off on it and the man HAS to comply and wait 20-60 days usually for a formal hearing to determine the merits. The case worker dealing with the abuse of the children could not do ANYTHING to protect the children because there were no current bruises bigger than a nickel and, get this, the authorities asked the mom if she abused the children and she said no. The next 21 days the facts were given too us rather straight. Many judges, without any evidence can decide to not even hear the case in the scheduled hearing and just rule, putting the man in jail awaiting trial. Fortunately, the case was heard, the charges totally dismissed citing that her only reason was to gain custody of the children. However, the court had the authority to request property be returned, but not the children.

A major consequence of this was, because she claimed domestic abuse she would get free counsel throughout all legal dealings with my friend, even though the case was dismissed.

At the temporary hearing they were granted equal custody awaiting trial. During the interlude my friend never was alone with this woman without a police standby of his request, never was on the phone without a recorder, refused to be alone with this woman even though she requested to be.

Four months later the trial came and despite glowing witnesses for the man and 3 drunks and 2 witnesses for the woman actually stating my friend was a better father than she was a mother and upheld his case of her family, and her own, history of abuse, alcohol, rape, incest, drug use, the court ruled against him. The reason? The judge found him to be too egocentric because he refused to trust the woman during the time between the separation and the trial. She got the kids, etc etc, he only has 2 weekends a month and 2 weeks in the summer, and he pays over 1500 a month in child support alone not including the orders for insurance etc etc. Later when the costs began to outweigh his means and after spending 16,000 on lawyers for the two hearings and trial, he could not afford the 10k it would cost for appeal and indeed it was tough to make ends meet because the 1500 in child support was a factual error he couldn't get corrected for 2 years after the original ruling.

Also, once a person faces legal aid attorneys in Iowa, they can never be represented by legal aid attorneys..equal justice at its best. So later when my friend was struggling financially he was refused service and if he ever faces criminal charges he can only hope for court appointed attorneys until he gets his financial feet again.

The actual case law in Iowa that is precedent is that of a crack whore, who literally pimps herself out of the home where her children are winning custody over a man who works as an actuary for an insurance company and is as clean as well...clean and always had been. Good times :thumbsdown:

If that doesn't put the fear of God into men to stay with wives no matter what they do or who they become then I don't know...