In my opinion the judgement of innocence or guilt should be only be done trained by professional judges, as done in France for example. Letting unqualified, disinterested and often plain stupid people judge complex cases just leaves me baffled. That is the travesty that should be addressed.
-
-
This approach seems to have worked pretty well for a very long time. I don't think it is right for a judge to actually make guilty/not guilty decision in any serious case (murder etc), their job is to stay neutral and watch that rules are obeyed by all sides, it should be up to the random people who are unlikely to be involved in any possible institutional coverups to make key decision.Originally posted by Turion View PostComment
-
why go the whole hog and get rid of the whole court process and just have police decide your fate on the spot?
Joking!
Comment
-
He is okay when it comes to house prices, something that I can't say about majority of people on this crazy board...Originally posted by OwlHoot View PostComment
-
Just an Observation
At least a quarter of the jury I served on were nuts. There was no real evidence that the accused had done anything wrong. Even the prosecutor seemed to find it difficult to outline what the guy was actually alleged to have done wrong. He was up on an accessory charge because he had given the perpetrator a lift to the scene of the alleged (and very minor) crime. The criteria the judge outlined for him to guilty in law made it clear that there was no way he could be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
One juror said that only God could decide that someone was truly innocent, therefore we should find him guilty.
Another said that we should find him guilty as an example to deter others from associating with shady people.
A third said that he just looked shifty and that even if he hadn't done this one he had probably done bad things in the past so we should find him guilty.
Great, huh?Comment
-
-
Not complaining in the slightest, just pointing out my practical experience of what random selection of jurors can result in. As Winston Churchill said of democracy (to paraphrase), "it's the least bad system".Originally posted by AtW View PostComment
-
Maybe they should appoint juries to judge IR35, SS60 and maybe any other tax case. As tax investigations are normally against people with above average incomes I think jealosy and a 'he can afford it so should pay up regardless... mentality would win here'. After all if it's a cross section of society, the jury would earn £25k/yr average. I remember a recent poll of ordinary joe public that reckoned £62k YEAR (not week!) was a good salary for a TOP international footballer! WTF. For us ITers I think it was £30K
Basically joe public is thick as ****, generally does not have a clue and is totally naive. That's why they have the vote - so New Lie, et al can stay in power.Comment
Comment