Jury Trials to Be Scrapped for Most Cases

We’re not allowed to leave the ECHR because fascism or something. But they can happily take away your right to a jury of your peers, no questions asked.
 
I've done jury service.

I support getting rid of it.

It's expensive and utterly futile. Most jurors are very easily led by the strongest barrister. A bunch of randoms listening to often complex legal arguments doesn't work.

Judges aren't perfect by any means but this seems very sensible.
 
NeuroFox said:
I've done jury service.

I support getting rid of it.

It's expensive and utterly futile. Most jurors are very easily led by the strongest barrister. A bunch of randoms listening to often complex legal arguments doesn't work.

Judges aren't perfect by any means but this seems very sensible.
Click to expand...
Of course you have and of course you do.

Don't worry about a persons rights or anything like that. Our judges are so impartial these days!! 🙄
 
NeuroFox said:
I could say the same.

Maybe not everything is worth getting agitated about. Sometimes a change is just a sensible thing to do and isn't designed to ruin your existence.
Click to expand...
What are you babbling on about now? It is yet another nail in the coffin of civil liberties from this government who is trying to make us a Communist State. Take off your arguementative, red misted spectacles off for one minute and look at everything they are doing. Why are they making policy for 3+ years away. They ain't going to be anywhere near power by then. Unless of course they will try to make sure that fair election is a thing of the past...

There is none as blind as those who choose not to see.
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
Weren't you in support of leaving the ECHR? So some human rights are OK.

Still clueless what Communism means.
Click to expand...
The ECHR is only used against the native people of this once great nation. We can come out of that and have our own HR act which considers victims instead of the perpetrators.

Why don't you all tell us what Communism is...
 
FoxInEssex said:
The ECHR is only used against the native people of this once great nation. We can come out of that and have our own HR act which considers victims instead of the perpetrators.
Click to expand...
One of the many rights it protects are those to a fair trial, which is what you seem to be arguing for here. It doesn't specify anything about "native people".

FoxInEssex said:
Why don't you all tell us what Communism is...
Click to expand...
Educate yourself. I can tell you it's nothing like the current Labour Govt.
 
NeuroFox said:
I've done jury service.

I support getting rid of it.

It's expensive and utterly futile. Most jurors are very easily led by the strongest barrister. A bunch of randoms listening to often complex legal arguments doesn't work.

Judges aren't perfect by any means but this seems very sensible.
Click to expand...
Nay, nay and thrice, NAY! Ive done it too, it worked very well. I would rather put my liberty in the hands of twelve random people, of good repute, than one man. Every one has their political and moral preferences. What makes you think judges are any different?
 
You're getting your knickers in a twist for something that is already a very small proportion of the legal system.

About 90% of criminal trials are already decided by judges and not juries.

A measure of the effectiveness of their decision making is the rate of decisions being overturned. For jury trials that are appealed, 29% are overturned. For those decided by judges, 26% are overturned.

So, juries are not better than judges. If anything, it's the other way round.

Meanwhile, jury determined trials cost up to ten times the amount of judge led ones.

They're a bit daft if you think about it aren't they?
 
I'm uncomfortable about this proposal, but having completed jury service only 6 weeks ago I can say with certainty that the current system is a massive black hole of public money.

40 of us turn up on a Monday. Travel expenses, food expenses, loss of earnings (depending on your employers policy). Working hours way below the 'normal'.
I got selected on Monday afternoon to hear a case. It concluded late on the Friday, and I'd estimate we only spent 5 hours actually in the court room hearing the case. The rest of the time was endless delays and waiting around - some times the delays were explained to us (e.g. judge is busy this afternoon), some without explanation. It was a very frustrating experience. The following Monday a fresh 40 people arrive, for it all to be repeated. The case we heard was pretty low level, found guilty, slap on the wrist sentence. Honestly it felt like a complete waste of everyone's time.

If it is similar at every crown court across the country, the cost must be extraordinary. And that's only for the jurors. Never mind the barristers, clerks, witness costs (police waiting around for hours), all the support staff etc etc. So from a financial point of view I can see value in the proposal.
 
Adumass said:
I'm uncomfortable about this proposal, but having completed jury service only 6 weeks ago I can say with certainty that the current system is a massive black hole of public money.

40 of us turn up on a Monday. Travel expenses, food expenses, loss of earnings (depending on your employers policy). Working hours way below the 'normal'.
I got selected on Monday afternoon to hear a case. It concluded late on the Friday, and I'd estimate we only spent 5 hours actually in the court room hearing the case. The rest of the time was endless delays and waiting around - some times the delays were explained to us (e.g. judge is busy this afternoon), some without explanation. It was a very frustrating experience. The following Monday a fresh 40 people arrive, for it all to be repeated. The case we heard was pretty low level, found guilty, slap on the wrist sentence. Honestly it felt like a complete waste of everyone's time.

If it is similar at every crown court across the country, the cost must be extraordinary. And that's only for the jurors. Never mind the barristers, clerks, witness costs (police waiting around for hours), all the support staff etc etc. So from a financial point of view I can see value in the proposal.
Click to expand...
Great post, well argued, informative and based on personal experience.
 
NeuroFox said:
You're getting your knickers in a twist for something that is already a very small proportion of the legal system.

About 90% of criminal trials are already decided by judges and not juries.

A measure of the effectiveness of their decision making is the rate of decisions being overturned. For jury trials that are appealed, 29% are overturned. For those decided by judges, 26% are overturned.

So, juries are not better than judges. If anything, it's the other way round.

Meanwhile, jury determined trials cost up to ten times the amount of judge led ones.

They're a bit daft if you think about it aren't they?
Click to expand...
It's a measure of effectiveness, but you'd have to look at the breakdown of the grounds for appeal and on which the appeals were actually allowed. And it's not as if 29 and 26% is really a significant difference.
 
SteveYork said:
It's a measure of effectiveness, but you'd have to look at the breakdown of the grounds for appeal and on which the appeals were actually allowed. And it's not as if 29 and 26% is really a significant difference.
Click to expand...

I was demonstrating that there is no evidence that juries are more effective than judges.
 
Adumass said:
I'm uncomfortable about this proposal, but having completed jury service only 6 weeks ago I can say with certainty that the current system is a massive black hole of public money.

40 of us turn up on a Monday. Travel expenses, food expenses, loss of earnings (depending on your employers policy). Working hours way below the 'normal'.
I got selected on Monday afternoon to hear a case. It concluded late on the Friday, and I'd estimate we only spent 5 hours actually in the court room hearing the case. The rest of the time was endless delays and waiting around - some times the delays were explained to us (e.g. judge is busy this afternoon), some without explanation. It was a very frustrating experience. The following Monday a fresh 40 people arrive, for it all to be repeated. The case we heard was pretty low level, found guilty, slap on the wrist sentence. Honestly it felt like a complete waste of everyone's time.

If it is similar at every crown court across the country, the cost must be extraordinary. And that's only for the jurors. Never mind the barristers, clerks, witness costs (police waiting around for hours), all the support staff etc etc. So from a financial point of view I can see value in the proposal.
Click to expand...
They need to sort out the system, not scrap it because it doesn't work. I've been in courts waiting all day for prisoners to be brought who don't arrive. Sometimes they bring the wrong prisoner or go to the wrong court. How difficult can it be to get that right? Privatisation hasn't helped, selling prison services to the lowest bidder so pay peanuts and get monkeys, also massively cutting the numbers employed in prisons, selling off court buildings and allowing them to fall I to disrepair so there aren't enough courts available.
 
So Lammy is pressing on with his plan to burn through hundreds of years of English history

But then he isn't English so why am I not surprised?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top