Trial by jury

[Ianonabike]

Not sure the ECHR was mentioned very often in Magna Carta

I asked AI if it was mentioned, just to see how tactful it would be in calling me an idiot: "The Magna Carta (1215) does not mention the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR was created in 1950, more than 700 years later." It then provided the following:

 

[Shortfall]

Given Lammy's recent proposals to end jury trial apart from the most serious crimes like murder and rape, I'm amazed at the lack of outrage in here. Can you imagine the slew of angry Twitter memes and videos in the Trump thread if Donny had suggested such a thing?

 

[icowden]

Given Lammy's recent proposals to end jury trial apart from the most serious crimes like murder and rape, I'm amazed at the lack of outrage in here. Can you imagine the slew of angry Twitter memes and videos in the Trump thread if Donny had suggested such a thing?

OK, I'm outraged.

 

[spen666]

I asked AI if it was mentioned, just to see how tactful it would be in calling me an idiot: "The Magna Carta (1215) does not mention the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR was created in 1950, more than 700 years later." It then provided the following:

View attachment 11299

Set me off down a rabbit hole.

Imagine Lamy removing jury trial.


Defendant claims it breaches his article 5 or 6 rights & Supreme Court uphold the Defendant claim.

Will leave government in a bit of a quandary

 

[Beebo]

Not sure the ECHR was mentioned very often in Magna Carta

Did she die in vain?

 

[Ian H]

I asked AI if it was mentioned, just to see how tactful it would be in calling me an idiot: "The Magna Carta (1215) does not mention the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR was created in 1950, more than 700 years later." It then provided the following:

View attachment 11299

It's worth remembering that the Magna Carta related only to the rights of the church and the barons against the king. No one else.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Why do we even need trials? Just lock 'em up.

That is exactly the problem

I have spoken to several people who have been on juries

One person said that there was a juror on the same jury as him that had that exact atitude
He just said continually that the Police would not have arrested him and certainly would not have charged him unles he did it
therefore we all NEED to vote guilty
and would talk down any other opinion

Another person said the opposite - someone on their jury said "The Police are all ba****ds and the defendant is innocent" in all cases
and found it morally terrible that anyone ever votes Guilty

and another person who had someone who just wanted to get home early and so wanted everyone to vote guilty early so they could get out


Jury trials are a great idea - the problem is with people - they cannot be trusted to do it properly

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Jury trials are a great idea - the problem is with people - they cannot be trusted to do it properly

See also democracy.

 

[BoldonLad]

That is exactly the problem

I have spoken to several people who have been on juries

One person said that there was a juror on the same jury as him that had that exact atitude
He just said continually that the Police would not have arrested him and certainly would not have charged him unles he did it
therefore we all NEED to vote guilty
and would talk down any other opinion

Another person said the opposite - someone on their jury said "The Police are all ba****ds and the defendant is innocent" in all cases
and found it morally terrible that anyone ever votes Guilty

and another person who had someone who just wanted to get home early and so wanted everyone to vote guilty early so they could get out


Jury trials are a great idea - the problem is with people - they cannot be trusted to do it properly

I thought Jurors were instructed not the discuss their Jury Service?, as you say, the problem would appear to be people, maybe AI would be a better solution 😊

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

See also democracy.

The advantage of Democracy is that is only needs a majority and there are a lot more people involved

So the outright numbers means that the more sensible people out vote the ones that cannot be trusted


Well - it is a theory

 

[CXRAndy]

Arguing against his own position

View: https://x.com/BasilTheGreat/status/1995778682804203905?t=AjUTF-34EZWUfcQs8cCPnQ&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1995867890021794228?t=5_3S61DNFVafl6r1m9RPDQ&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/CrewkerneGaz/status/1995878719098159400?t=sG2BCz4vyMSiSc6ihBrcgg&s=19

 

[Psamathe]

Interesting that the moderately recent trial of a few from Extinction Rebellion who broke some windows as some Shell Offices. Judge instructed the jury they were guilty yet jury found them not guilty. Under proposed changes sounds like their case would have been magistrate or just judge ie no jury and they'd have been found guilty (as the judge commented they were).

Either we believe in justice under our jury system or we don't and seems to me Lamy was right 5 years ago when he said “Trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”

 

[First Aspect]

I don't think he was right 5 years ago, because the precedent of non jury criminal trials already existed. The changes are therefore not as great as they are being presented.

I personally believe that there is a greater likelihood of fair outcomes without a jury. Even though magistrates have no legal qualifications they do have experience and legal guidance available to them. I would think the odds of being impartial and of following the actual law would be higher than for a one-off jury.