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.

 

Here, it's between three to five depending on the severity and complexity of the case, and which court the trial is in (the higher the court, the more judges as a general rule).

I have no knowledge of UK courts or juries, but I was reading about the trial of several financial traders for manipulation back in 2011-2013 and both prosecution and defence lawyer teams noted that the jury 'switched off' for most of the day over the three week trial due to the tedium of financial regulations and complexity of the instruments. It's clearly not a fair trial and effectively coming down to a coin toss decision.

 

They might have thought the same about you.