Because everyone has a right to a fair trial. I know we've made mistakes in the past, but my brilliant plan should rectify that.
Are you serious? You have to separate the State from the judiciary, otherwise you'll get pressure to get a conviction regardless of the facts. Take a look at the Police who are under constant pressure to produce figures rather than ensure that the best cases are presented. Transfer that pressure to a less than independent judiciary and it becomes a weapon of the state. A government wants a clampdown on violent assaults, you WILL get more convictions for violent assault. It is hugely dangerous to civil liberties to conduct justice in this manner. I mentioned the Serious Fraud Office who have to prosecute the most complex cases of all. Even with the present system of jury trials, they have just about the best percentage of successful prosecutions. The reason is that they present the cases well and prosecute the right cases.
How ? youre 20, will it give people(irish people) back the time they lost before you were even born spent in prison without a trial ?
No, but it will stop it from happening to others. You can't change the past, but you can learn from it, and ensure it doesn't happen again. I have no issues with the irish.
That is a very good point. Maybe as an alternative solutions, we should just use professional juries, such as in the cases you've outlined. A very good contribution, have some rep.
Not saying you do, but if your government wants a brown person to be locked up for terrorism in this day and age, you can be damn sure they'll get it.
im not saying you have issues with the irish, im just saying it doesnt work as was experinced within the last 30/40 years
I'm all for facts. Innocent until proven guilty is how i work, and i disagree with the way we treat terror suspects, despite my great hatred of terrorism.
Ok, it is the job of the police to gather evidence. The job of the CPS to prosecute. I'd suggest that more cases are ****ed out of court due to a failure in the first part of that equation than the second. Through incompetence or intent, the police pose a greater threat to justice than some dickface on a jury. As I have suggested, the police have been compromised on many occasions because of the intolerable pressure placed on them to get "a result". Move that pressure to a judge and any semblance of impartiality goes out the window. Even if it that isn't the case, perception is very important and the perception is that this removes impartiality and that is enough to damage the fabric of society.
I really hope that the OP is joking / is not doing law. If not, he is a ****ing ****** who ought to learn some more about law and history.
I'm not joking, and i am doing law. Juries suck, they always screw up. And you're a ****ing ****** for calling me a ****** just for disagreeing with me. It's all right to have a difference of opinion, but to resort to insults makes you a pathetic little child.
Back to Ireland ask the many many innocent Irish locked up if they would have preferred a screw up jury. If juries always screw up chances are theyd have been locked up anyway but could have pleaded a case rather than, you're Irish enjoy prison
OK then smartarse, what is wrong with my article. Give me some clear and logical reasons, like everyone else has, instead of an insult.
No. I really can't be arsed to teach you the 100's of years of law that you should have learnt already. Try some research or practise.
