Should we get rid of juries

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Who would you have deciding your fate?

  • Juries

  • Legal Experts

Results are only viewable after voting.
Kyle?

Kyle?

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
15,002
144
63
34
South Wales
As i've stated before, i currently study law, and one of the things that struck me most was how often juries screw up. Take the recent example of the really dim person who decided to communicate with somebody involved with the trial on facebook. Without juries, this wouldn't happen. I did an article yesterday about the death penalty, and this partially ties in to that. If you get wrongly arrested on suspicion of a heinous crime, such as murder, do you want your fate decided by people with no legal knowledge whatsoever, people so dim that they make illogical and rash decisions, just because, for example, the defendant was wearing a nice tie.

I know if i found myself in that position, i would rather have my fate decided by a panel of legal experts, such as high court judges, etc, with a view to being neutral, and seeing all the facts. This would be better, as all it currently takes is a very good solicitor, who can have the jury eating out of their hand, and even if you commit murder, you can end up a free man (OJ Simpson, because he had Johnnie Cochran), whereas if legal experts were used, the right decision will probably be made.

I want your views on juries, and whether we should abolish an age old tradition, of having your fate decided by your peers.
 
My point is that they, and not you, will serve on the jury in judgment of me and therefore acquit me for my actions against the Jews/imperialists/capitalists/NWO
 
I would have legal experts. Why? Well because (this isnt exactly 100% serious) if you are against a really hot girl who everyone is attracted to, you have no chance no matter what with a jurie as they will just chose their favourite person. If its expert peoples then they may actually make a good choice ;)
 
Fred said:
I would have legal experts. Why? Well because (this isnt exactly 100% serious) if you are against a really hot girl who everyone is attracted to, you have no chance no matter what with a jurie as they will just chose their favourite person. If its expert peoples then they may actually make a good choice ;)
Click to expand...

You may not think it as 100% serious, but this sort of stuff does go on with juries. You're joky response is actually a very good point. Well done fred, have some rep.
 
i see this hasnt really been taken serious, but i can see wbhere you are coming from.

last year i was on jury duty and i can admit as soon as i seen the accused and the defendent i had made my mind up. Mainly because one was a junkie wee bastard and the other looked like a decent citizen.

No matter who does the job though there will always be ways round it etc
 
I wish you luck

You will have great success with the media about abolishing Judaism/Christianity/Buddhism/Sikhism/Hinduism but any attempt to criticise Islam will be censored
 
Professional juries have been introduced for matters of serious and complex fraud. Recommendations were made by Lord Roskill in 1986 to adopt a Trials committee for these matters but they were rejected. Turns out he was right...ish as loads of trials went tits up because the judges couldn't understand what was going on, let alone 'lay' juries.

A bill was put forward a few years back to press ahead with similar measures. Lord Goldsmith QC argued that it wasn't an attack on jury trials at all...not sure I buy that, but I know the Serious Fraud Office has pressed ahead with measures to make things a bit easier for everyone to understand. Things like improved graphics packages has helped with that. I have yet to be convinced by Lord Goldsmith's argument ( not that my opinion counts for much) but this is the only scenario I could even consider it.

Fundamentally I agree with Jury trials. Juries serve an important purpose and without them we have what amounts to a kangaroo court. The risk of an inept jury is one that has been with us for 800 years. Introducing a system where the “machine” decides a persons guilt as opposed to a jury of ones peers is far more open to abuse as far as I can see.

The two options in the poll kinda limit my options, so I'll not be voting.
 
RebelBhoy said:
Professional juries have been introduced for matters of serious and complex fraud. Recommendations were made by Lord Roskill in 1986 to adopt a Trials committee for these matters but they were rejected. Turns out he was right...ish as loads of trials went tits up because the judges couldn't understand what was going on, let alone 'lay' juries.

A bill was put forward a few years back to press ahead with similar measures. Lord Goldsmith QC argued that it wasn't an attack on jury trials at all...not sure I buy that, but I know the Serious Fraud Office has pressed ahead with measures to make things a bit easier for everyone to understand. Things like improved graphics packages has helped with that. I have yet to be convinced by Lord Goldsmith's argument ( not that my opinion counts for much) but this is the only scenario I could even consider it.

Fundamentally I agree with Jury trials. Juries serve an important purpose and without them we have what amounts to a kangaroo court. The risk of an inept jury is one that has been with us for 800 years. Introducing a system where the “machine” decides a persons guilt as opposed to a jury of ones peers is far more open to abuse as far as I can see.

The two options in the poll kinda limit my options, so I'll not be voting.
Click to expand...

I can't see how it's open to abuse. It gets rid of the most unpredictable aspect of the whole trial.
 
I like posting serious threads, it always raises serious talking points, rather than the usual threads about fit birds and anal rape.
 
why not do like they did to the irish just lock um up no trial , no judge, no jury ..... if it was ok for the irish in the 1970/80s surely its still ok everyone now
 
Most of the judges are really dim, like the juror who decided to communicate with someone connected to a trial via facebook.
I'd stick with jurors and get rid of these silly old fart judges and get some younger ones with a lot more common sense than the dinosaurs in wigs.
 
"Actually the Christians use to do that back in the day,......when they actually where "Christians""

Yes but they ignored their pussy founder who said to turn the other cheek while our beloved Mohammed said to beat the **** out of the whore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back