|
Post by fretslider on May 7, 2020 6:20:27 GMT -5
The jury system is arguably the most effective way of delivering justice that the world has ever devised. Academic research suggests that juries are ‘fair and efficient’, take their duties seriously, and do not discriminate against any kind of defendant. Historically, the jury system worked to correct unjust laws by acquitting defendants even when they were guilty of unjust crimes, through a practice which became known as jury nullification. The system of judging people by 12 of their peers has shaped history in favour of liberty and justice. So why is it that whenever there is any kind of crisis it is the jury system that comes under attack? Last week, Richard Henriques wrote an article in The Times suggesting that people facing long waits for their trials due to the lockdown could be tried by a judge sitting alone. This follows the decision, announced by the Lord Chief Justice, to suspend all new jury trials until arrangements are put in place to help mitigate the risks of spreading Covid-19. Originally, the plan was that only new jury trials expected to last more than three days would be halted. But mounting pressure from the legal profession led to a complete suspension. Supporters of a move to judge-only trials say this would be a choice that defendants would make, allowing the courts to get back to work without diluting the traditional rights of defendants. But while this might seem like a proportionate proposal in extraordinary times, it is nothing of the sort. It would offer up a diluted version of a fair trial. In fact, just as the jury trial has been shown throughout history to be a reliable protector of individual liberty, the judge-only trial has been shown to be a parody of justice. Judge-only trials were used widely over the course of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. These so-called ‘Diplock Courts’ were formally abolished in 2007, but judge-only trials continue to be used in Northern Ireland in particular circumstances. The courts were accused during the 1970s of ignoring brutal police interrogation techniques and giving undue weight to the evidence of police and military informants. One of the few convictions arising from a judge-only court in recent years, the case involving the so-called Craigavon Two, is now cited as a case in which defendants were convicted on a lower standard of evidence than would be expected in a jury trial. This is not to suggest that the judiciary is inherently biased against defendants; it is simply to point out that judges are part of the state. It would hardly be surprising if individual judges were more willing to overlook or excuse gaps in prosecution evidence than a jury of 12 citizens would be. Asking defendants to choose between a long wait before a proper trial and a judge-only trial raises another question for lawyers: why aren’t more of them calling for the immediate resumption of jury trials? Certain legal practitioners are ‘key workers’ within the government guidance, but the restrictions on trials going ahead means their work has been seriously curtailed. Lawyers beg to be considered as frontline workers when it comes to their pay disputes with the government. So why not prove how essential they are by insisting on the courts opening properly? The jury system is arguably the most effective way of delivering justice that the world has ever devised. Academic research suggests that juries are ‘fair and efficient’, take their duties seriously, and do not discriminate against any kind of defendant. Historically, the jury system worked to correct unjust laws by acquitting defendants even when they were guilty of unjust crimes, through a practice which became known as jury nullification. The system of judging people by 12 of their peers has shaped history in favour of liberty and justice. So why is it that whenever there is any kind of crisis it is the jury system that comes under attack? Last week, Richard Henriques wrote an article in The Times suggesting that people facing long waits for their trials due to the lockdown could be tried by a judge sitting alone. This follows the decision, announced by the Lord Chief Justice, to suspend all new jury trials until arrangements are put in place to help mitigate the risks of spreading Covid-19. Originally, the plan was that only new jury trials expected to last more than three days would be halted. But mounting pressure from the legal profession led to a complete suspension. Supporters of a move to judge-only trials say this would be a choice that defendants would make, allowing the courts to get back to work without diluting the traditional rights of defendants. But while this might seem like a proportionate proposal in extraordinary times, it is nothing of the sort. It would offer up a diluted version of a fair trial. In fact, just as the jury trial has been shown throughout history to be a reliable protector of individual liberty, the judge-only trial has been shown to be a parody of justice. Judge-only trials were used widely over the course of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. These so-called ‘Diplock Courts’ were formally abolished in 2007, but judge-only trials continue to be used in Northern Ireland in particular circumstances. The courts were accused during the 1970s of ignoring brutal police interrogation techniques and giving undue weight to the evidence of police and military informants. One of the few convictions arising from a judge-only court in recent years, the case involving the so-called Craigavon Two, is now cited as a case in which defendants were convicted on a lower standard of evidence than would be expected in a jury trial. This is not to suggest that the judiciary is inherently biased against defendants; it is simply to point out that judges are part of the state. It would hardly be surprising if individual judges were more willing to overlook or excuse gaps in prosecution evidence than a jury of 12 citizens would be. Asking defendants to choose between a long wait before a proper trial and a judge-only trial raises another question for lawyers: why aren’t more of them calling for the immediate resumption of jury trials? Certain legal practitioners are ‘key workers’ within the government guidance, but the restrictions on trials going ahead means their work has been seriously curtailed. Lawyers beg to be considered as frontline workers when it comes to their pay disputes with the government. So why not prove how essential they are by insisting on the courts opening properly? www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/07/juries-are-essential-even-in-times-of-crisis/Everything is up for central control.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Aug 1, 2020 15:30:22 GMT -5
It's all part of the trend towards greater authoritarianism. Left and right are united in their hatred of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 2, 2020 4:21:33 GMT -5
It's all part of the trend towards greater authoritarianism. Left and right are united in their hatred of freedom. Left and right are united in their hatred of freedomSounds very even handed, but it isn't true. All the demands for censorship and the removal of liberties come from the left. The left controls all the media... In recent weeks, the Culture War has been widely discussed in the media. Yet there is a lack of clarity about what this conflict is about, who started it, and what are the issues at stake. www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/16/an-ideology-without-a-name/... and institutions Take the jellyfish known as Boris Johnson. His original [liberal] instinct was to avoid the fad for locking down but he was pushed into it by a very eager expertarati, media and the left. They were outraged that he hadn't removed our liberties; sooner. Like Sweden, we could have avoided a lot of the unnecessary economic pain and hardship to come - IF he'd stuck to his guns. Herd immunity is the real key. The virus has achieved in a few short months what climate alarmism is still failing to achieve even now. Has anybody seen Greta? This is how you 'decarbonise' an economy. You wreck it.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Aug 2, 2020 15:49:03 GMT -5
It's all part of the trend towards greater authoritarianism. Left and right are united in their hatred of freedom. Left and right are united in their hatred of freedomSounds very even handed, but it isn't true. All the demands for censorship and the removal of liberties come from the left. The left controls all the media... In recent weeks, the Culture War has been widely discussed in the media. Yet there is a lack of clarity about what this conflict is about, who started it, and what are the issues at stake. www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/16/an-ideology-without-a-name/... and institutions Take the jellyfish known as Boris Johnson. His original [liberal] instinct was to avoid the fad for locking down but he was pushed into it by a very eager expertarati, media and the left. They were outraged that he hadn't removed our liberties; sooner. Like Sweden, we could have avoided a lot of the unnecessary economic pain and hardship to come - IF he'd stuck to his guns. Herd immunity is the real key. The virus has achieved in a few short months what climate alarmism is still failing to achieve even now. Has anybody seen Greta? This is how you 'decarbonise' an economy. You wreck it. Fret, in the first place 'climate alarmism' is a disease that many people on the far right also suffer from. Secondly, I think you're too tolerant of the intolerant of the right-wingers just as too many people (especially in the media) are too tolerant of the intolerance of the left-wingers. As Orwell rightly said, the REAL divide isn't between left and right; it's between authoritarians and libertarians. And I've seen plenty of authoritarian attitudes and behaviour from both left and right.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 3, 2020 6:13:21 GMT -5
Left and right are united in their hatred of freedomSounds very even handed, but it isn't true. All the demands for censorship and the removal of liberties come from the left. The left controls all the media... In recent weeks, the Culture War has been widely discussed in the media. Yet there is a lack of clarity about what this conflict is about, who started it, and what are the issues at stake. www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/16/an-ideology-without-a-name/... and institutions Take the jellyfish known as Boris Johnson. His original [liberal] instinct was to avoid the fad for locking down but he was pushed into it by a very eager expertarati, media and the left. They were outraged that he hadn't removed our liberties; sooner. Like Sweden, we could have avoided a lot of the unnecessary economic pain and hardship to come - IF he'd stuck to his guns. Herd immunity is the real key. The virus has achieved in a few short months what climate alarmism is still failing to achieve even now. Has anybody seen Greta? This is how you 'decarbonise' an economy. You wreck it. Fret, in the first place 'climate alarmism' is a disease that many people on the far right also suffer from. Secondly, I think you're too tolerant of the intolerant of the right-wingers just as too many people (especially in the media) are too tolerant of the intolerance of the left-wingers. As Orwell rightly said, the REAL divide isn't between left and right; it's between authoritarians and libertarians. And I've seen plenty of authoritarian attitudes and behaviour from both left and right. Fret, in the first place 'climate alarmism' is a disease that many people on the far right also suffer from.I have to wonder where you get these ideas from, Lin. It's the clarion call from the left - people who are sceptical, or as they say climate deniers - are all right wing. That's how the left differentiates itself and attempts to occupy the moral high ground. Also in the UK there are... Brexit Climate Deniers
it was revealed that Lord Lawson's climate denying Global Warming Policy Foundation had moved its headquarters into the same building as Brexit campaign groups 'Business for Britain' and 'Vote Leave', along with a slew of other right wing organisations including the TaxPayers' Alliance. www.desmog.co.uk/brexit-climate-deniersWho knew paying taxes was right wing? How right-wing nationalism fuels climate denialwww.dw.com/en/how-right-wing-nationalism-fuels-climate-denial/a-46699510Etc etc Secondly, I think you're too tolerant of the intolerant of the right-wingers just as too many people (especially in the media) are too tolerant of the intolerance of the left-wingers.Can you give a couple of names here? I can't find anything approaching the no-platforming, cancelling (losing one's career etc) or even plain basic censorship tactics used by all the left leaning social media etc. So, an example would go along way to backing up that particular assertion. There is only one right leaning platform I'm aware of and that is Parler. Nobody has been censored on that. As Orwell rightly said, the REAL divide isn't between left and right; it's between authoritarians and libertarians.And as things stand the authoritarianism comes from the left; who have indoctrinated children at school and university. Drag queen storytime and all that. That should have been pretty obvious with all the no-platforming, cancelling and intolerance of the young (left). Not to mention the fad for guilty until proven innocent. Hence people like Peter Tatchell and Germaine Greer are no longer left wing enough for the millenials. They say a man has a penis and that just cannot be allowed. Orwell had this to say about the left... In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.
And now you can add leukophobic - there is... something slightly disgraceful in being white.
|
|
toby1
Craftsman
Supplier of White Flags to the French Army.
Posts: 1,987
|
Post by toby1 on Aug 3, 2020 9:03:07 GMT -5
""Has anybody seen Greta?""
Rumour has it that Greta is trying to grow breasts, after all she is going on 18 !
|
|