The argument/complete nonsense thread...

If Lammy gets his way there won’t be a jury unless it is murder, manslaughter or rape.

 

thats a genuinely horrendous idea

 

Multiple user names? Which are those then? More affluent cities? Which are those then? Surprised you don’t say it is because Hull was bombed in the war.

 

Yes. If it is just up to a judge you can see certain people being guilty automatically and others walking free going by some recent events.

 

Works pretty well in most other countries. A jury just seems antiquated to me - ppl who dont want to be there, potential bias, lack of education in legalese, getting bored and open to manipulation. Plus the cost and time savings of not having them.

 

You're statistically more likely to get found not guilty via a jury outcome.

 

Yes, but if just up to a judge certain groups are more likely to get a heavier punishment.

 

UK budget soon...

 

I did jury service once, years ago, and without wanting to be unkind, most of the jury I served with weren't capable.

 

This wouldn't change would it as the jury just decides guilt, not the punishment.

But, yes, f you are referring to the issue of one person's bias relatively unchecked - I agree, it is an issue

 

It wouldn't have to be just be one judge though.