Juryless trial

Remove all ads!

For the first time in England and Wales a trial is taking place without a jury, Im sure many posters will be familiar with the Heathrow robbery where armed robbers stormed a cash depot, though they only made away with £1.75mil instead of the £10mil they were expecting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453318.stm

http://news.aol.co.uk/four-due-to-face-trial-without/article/201001120146299187002

http://news.aol.co.uk/four-due-to-face-trial-without/article/201001120146299187002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/trial-without-jury-heathrow-robbery

 

Do you think it might simply be for the protection of the members of the jury (they have rights too you know!) and not for monetary issues?

 

There are a lot of people in our beloved Western democracies who feel that the criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizens. The fact that the criminals have enough clout to force the government to spend 6 million pounds to protect the juries underscores that. Plus, if a juror is killed or injured, or his family slaughtered, it's very likely that the criminal will be given a 6 month sentence because of a slick lawyer or a stupid minor error on the part of the brave policeman who catches the thug.

So bravo to the lawmakers who finally said that in a society where the government is hamstrung and cannot guarantee the safety of jury members, we'll just omit the jury. I think it's a capital idea. The criminals should not be so delicately treated. Obviously if the evidence was not sufficient to reach a conviction they wouldn't need to tamper with the jury in the first place. They will likely go to jail, and I hope to God that it's for longer than 6 months!

The civil liberties people whining about the rights of criminal filth should focus their energies on the victims of crimes, rather than those who perpetrate them.

 

We've had non-jury cases in Ireland for quite a while now. They were introduced for IRA cases as intimidation of jurors' families was making it impossible to conduct trials. They're also used for some cases involving criminal gangs now.

I can't recall any major problems with their use. The jiduciary have always been very independent and are very jealous of guarding that.

 

It's a dangerous move, but not necessarily a bad one. Just as long as the people keep a close eye on those trials. Remember, the US Constitution includes a right to trial by jury for a reason.

 

As my father once told me "A trial by a jury full of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty is not a trial of your peers".

 

Interesting, Snook. On occasion my father was the one who ordered those arrested who thought they shouldn't have to serve in his courtroom.

BTW, I still remember a former history professor of mine in college, who was also a friend, complaining to me that my father would not let him out of the jury pool, even though he commented to him that I had been a former student of his.

 

Well, there is a big difference between not showing up for jury duty and making sure you aren't picked for a jury. In my case being a CPA almost disqualifies me from civil trials as there is a presumption that I will side with the business and that I have an understanding of money. As for criminial trials my wife was flashed on a bus many years ago so being married to a crime victim helps you get excused. Being a conservative also helps as the defense doesn't want such mean people on the jury

 

Criminals? The accused haven't been convicted of any crimes yet. You need a jury of 12 to do that. Oh wait...

 

We don't have juries here and we manage somehow. This said, we have lay judges right on the bench, who outnumber the professional judges 2 to 1 or 3 to 2.

Jury is tricky from an outsider's point of view. Sure, it's good to have them when you're pitied against a corporation or when a prosecutor is trying to jail you for something you did in self-defence or for a victimless crime or some such, but it's fine when the supposed victim is making emotional appeals, or when the opposition manages to bribe or coerce them.

 

Judges can't be bribed or coerced?

 

Of course they can, but judges routinely go through an exhaustive screening procedure performed by intelligence agencies and they are selected on their merits after a long career in law.

 

Wow, your country must do things way different then in the U.S. I think most of our judges are lawyers who are also political hacks.

 

Actually, I no very little about the selection process of judges outside the US. Many judges in the US are appointed (although some are elected by the people), which could certainly lead to bribery (if not of the judge that the one doing the appointing) to make a certain selection.

 

Mordea, when you've got someone with a long criminal history*, who has not had a recent conviction because in his last 7 trials witnesses or jury family members have recently died in "accidents", it's fair to classify them as criminals.

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but common sense must prevail, and rules should ensure a fair trial, not one severely tilted in favour of the accused. A system that allows the accused to intimidate, threaten, or coerce the jurors is tilted, wouldn't you agree?

* as in several previous convictions.

 

LKD,

The US system does not ALLOW the accused to intimidate, threaten, blackmail, etc., jurors. It's illegal, they just don't get caught. I think "allowed" is not the most descriptive word that you could pick there.

That said, I totally agree that the US system is tilted in favor of the accused, but will merely point out that it is that way by design. The US system was never set up to be, nor ever intended to be, a level playing field. Nearly every aspect of it is tilted in favor of the accused. It is designed so that it is far more likely that a guilty person will go free, than an innocent person will go to jail, so we should not necessarily be too surprised when the former happens.

 

"Permit", then. Or "fails to stop the criminal from intimidating" I know it's not legal, but it happens worldwide, and it's a disgrace. The real slant should be in favour of protecting the truly innocent.

 

Why? You haven't proven in a court of law that they had anything to do with those 'accidents'.

Common sense? Whose common sense? I'd much rather we adhere to the innocent until proven guilty axiom, which is the bedrock of the British legal system.

And what's to prevent the accused from intimidating, threatening or coercing the judge? Do the black robes of a judge grant him a +20 to reflex saves against bullets? Does the judge have the paladin's aura of courage, which grants him an immunity to fear due to coercion and threats?

If jurors are being intimidated, the answer is simple: Grant them more protection, and imprison the individuals coercing them. In otherwords, have the legal system actually carry out its main roles: To dispense justice, and to serve and protect the public. Dispensing with a trial by peers is abhorrent. Like the 'innocent until proven guilty' axiom, a trial by your peers is the bedrock of the British legal system.

 

Mordea, sometimes cases are open and shut, ever think that maybe sometimes juries hinder the legal system?