Hillsborough tragedy

[Quality Passing Rules]

I don't think this is the sort of case that should go before a jury. I don't think any major case should be. I'd much rather people who properly knew the law were determining my freedom in that situation than 12 random members of the public. The public are mostly morons.

That completely undermines Magna Carta. Two things to point out. 1) It is the document that almost all citizens right documents, in any democratic society, are based on. That leads onto 2) Magna Carta is what stops the ruling class trampling the rights of all freemen (or free citizens to give it a modern term.) While I share your frustrations with the legal system sometimes, undermining Magna Carta could lead to far worse things.

 

[Fourtyyearsofhurt(mostly)]

Terrible tragedy.....one which should never have happened but I think the Liverpool fans have come out of it over recent years blameless which is not the case as everybody knows fans that come in late are usually the ones who have had most to drink!! At least it was the end of those sh***y cages.....disgraceful....

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

That completely undermines Magna Carta. Two things to point out. 1) It is the document that almost all citizens right documents, in any democratic society, are based on. That leads onto 2) Magna Carta is what stops the ruling class trampling the rights of all freemen (or free citizens to give it a modern term.) While I share your frustrations with the legal system sometimes, undermining Magna Carta could lead to far worse things.

Most inquests are presided over by a coroner alone anyway. I assume a jury is being used here because of the gravity of the questions asked of the police commander. The jurors are assessing whether he's guilty of unlawful killing, although I must admit, the status of any such finding is not entirely clear to me. This isn't a criminal trial. I assume the Director of Public Prosecutions would merely take note of any adverse findings when deciding on whether the Crown should be bringing a prosecution

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

That completely undermines Magna Carta. Two things to point out. 1) It is the document that almost all citizens right documents, in any democratic society, are based on. That leads onto 2) Magna Carta is what stops the ruling class trampling the rights of all freemen (or free citizens to give it a modern term.) While I share your frustrations with the legal system sometimes, undermining Magna Carta could lead to far worse things.

As in the 1215 Magna Carta? Surely there's a better way 800 years on?

 

[QPR247]

The whole incident has been terrible for everyone involved. A massive mistake was obviously made by a man who was totally under qualified to do the job. However, its the cover-up and projection of blame to the supporters that is the real issue. This was the 80's remember, a decade of pretty awful hooliganism, I'm sure it was the easiest thing to do rather than admit you might be responsible for the deaths of 96 people. I'm not sure how I feel about what punishment Duckenfield should face he's probably been living a life sentance since April 1989.

On a side note about injustice and the legal system (albeit crazy USA) has anyone watched "Making a Murderer" on Netflix. Highly recomended if you have 10 hours free!!

 

[Quality Passing Rules]

As in the 1215 Magna Carta? Surely there's a better way 800 years on?

That may be but while it is as it is right now, a legal president that undermines it could be a bit of a Pandora's box situation.

 

[Quality Passing Rules]

Most inquests are presided over by a coroner alone anyway. I assume a jury is being used here because of the gravity of the questions asked of the police commander. The jurors are assessing whether he's guilty of unlawful killing, although I must admit, the status of any such finding is not entirely clear to me. This isn't a criminal trial. I assume the Director of Public Prosecutions would merely take note of any adverse findings when deciding on whether the Crown should be bringing a prosecution

My comment wasn't aimed at the inquiry it was a reply to Watford's post about scrapping juries in general.

 

[Quality Passing Rules]

With our current governments attempts to spin legal aid in their favour, by stripping it from those who can't afford legal counsel when challenging them, magna carta is one of the few things in their way. Would any of us want a legal system that is only accessible to those with the money to pay for representation. Magna carta does far more for the people of this country than is often realised. Personally I say it's a case of be careful what you wish for.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

My comment wasn't aimed at the inquiry it was a reply to Watford's post about scrapping juries in general.

I think they serve a purpose for relatively minor offences. For rape, murder, serious fraud etc. I just don't trust the intelligence of the average bloke on the street to comprehend adequately to be reliable. If the outcome was determined by experts hopefully free of any possible bias, that would be fairer for everyone, not least the jurors.

 

[Quality Passing Rules]

I think they serve a purpose for relatively minor offences. For rape, murder, serious fraud etc. I just don't trust the intelligence of the average bloke on the street to comprehend adequately to be reliable. If the outcome was determined by experts hopefully free of any possible bias, that would be fairer for everyone, not least the jurors.

There's merit in what you say re some cases. I friend of my mum was ex high finance and she found herself on a business fraud jury. As she put it, if she hadn't been there to explain things in lay mans terms for the rest of them, they wouldn't have had a clue what was going on. Not completely rubbishing it, I just read your first post as a generalisation. In specific areas, you could deffo be onto something.

 

[Quality Passing Rules]

It can rear up in funny was though. A good friend of mine was on a jury for a robbery on the tube. The defendant was bang to rights on camera but one of the jury members was so busy going on about the defendants living circumstances, eg: had no money for food, came from a deprived background (they are the two I can remember.) He had to point out that they are there to decide if she robbed someone, nothing more. It's scary that some jurors seem to forget that they are there to answer a simple question of did they, or didn't they do something. Or have their own agendas. For those who haven't seen it, watch an old B&W film called 12 angry men. Although it's set in the U.S, it is the best example of the theory, reasonable doubt, I have ever seen. All jurors should be made to watch it before sitting IMO.