FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Jury trials gone
Jury trials gone
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 8 weeks ago
|
Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is. "
Why percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury at present? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 8 weeks ago
|
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is.
Why percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury at present? "
I beg your pardon. Do your own research, I’m not your lapdog 😡 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is.
Why percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury at present?
I beg your pardon. Do your own research, I’m not your lapdog 😡"
I’d already done it. I just wondered if you had.
It’s 2-3% of criminal trials |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is.
Why percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury at present?
I beg your pardon. Do your own research, I’m not your lapdog 😡
I’d already done it. I just wondered if you had.
It’s 2-3% of criminal trials"
2-3% is the amount of criminal trails held in a crown court. You didn't research you read the Google AI tool and you misinterpreted it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is.
Why percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury at present?
I beg your pardon. Do your own research, I’m not your lapdog 😡
I’d already done it. I just wondered if you had.
It’s 2-3% of criminal trials
2-3% is the amount of criminal trails held in a crown court. You didn't research you read the Google AI tool and you misinterpreted it "
Oops 🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 8 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
3% is approx 30K - 40k cases.
That is a lot of people who will not have the opportunity to be judged by their peers.
I'm not a supporter of this, the government has made changes to everything other than the problem that causes the backlog of trials, an outdated legal system that has failed to modernise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *9alMan 8 weeks ago
Bridgend |
one of the few things the Americans do better than us is up front plea bargaining
ie plead guilty to a lesser charge & know what sentence you will get. the UK system is very vague so its often worth pleading not guilty & going for a full trial on the off chance you might get off, even if found guilty the sentence can be a bit random depending on the judge |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Step 1: AI trials. An algorithm looks through case law, statutory law, all related cases and applies them to the facts, background and testimonies. Twelve further algorithms act as jury, randomly selected for a bank of 10,000 AI personas.
Case over in minutes or hours.
Step 2: AI robots as police, automated evidence collection and enforcement. Blue lives matter, and this will save them time and effort. More time for doughnuts.
Step 3: Predictive algorithms for behaviour based upon profiling with said robotic police enforcing preemptively. This would only affect a minority of the population and could be monitored through reporting. We could call it an automated minority report.
Step 4: Peace on Earth. Roll this solution out globally. What could possibly go wrong?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Is this proposal only for trials where the possible/usual sentence is below 3 years?
Which given anything under 4 years is reduced by 50% and the offender released under community supervision..
Tbh I'm not massively in favour of changing the right to trial by jury but I can see the issue of just how messed up the system is across the board..
And the causes of the state its in go back decades and like defence etc are down to both the two main parties.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"3% is approx 30K - 40k cases.
That is a lot of people who will not have the opportunity to be judged by their peers.
I'm not a supporter of this, the government has made changes to everything other than the problem that causes the backlog of trials, an outdated legal system that has failed to modernise."
Exactly.🎯 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"
Tbh I'm not massively in favour of changing the right to trial by jury but I can see the issue of just how messed up the system is across the board..
"
This is kind of it in a nutshell.
I’d be interested in hearing the OP’s alternative proposal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is.
Why percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury at present?
I beg your pardon. Do your own research, I’m not your lapdog 😡
I’d already done it. I just wondered if you had.
It’s 2-3% of criminal trials
2-3% is the amount of criminal trails held in a crown court. You didn't research you read the Google AI tool and you misinterpreted it "
Incorrect. Parliamentary debates (you’re free to read them online) and other websites. Would you like some links?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Tbh I'm not massively in favour of changing the right to trial by jury but I can see the issue of just how messed up the system is across the board..
This is kind of it in a nutshell.
I’d be interested in hearing the OP’s alternative proposal."
Personally I'm in favour of some of the Scandinavian and Netherlands ideas but they cost much more and whilst they do achieve far lesser numbers of recidivism which benefits society in general and surely is what everyone wants they require a rethinking of what is prison and the justice system meant to do?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"3% is approx 30K - 40k cases.
That is a lot of people who will not have the opportunity to be judged by their peers.
I'm not a supporter of this, the government has made changes to everything other than the problem that causes the backlog of trials, an outdated legal system that has failed to modernise."
Also the numbers are a bit of a red herring, what is being removed is the right to a jury trials, one of the ancient cornerstones of English justice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"3% is approx 30K - 40k cases.
That is a lot of people who will not have the opportunity to be judged by their peers.
I'm not a supporter of this, the government has made changes to everything other than the problem that causes the backlog of trials, an outdated legal system that has failed to modernise.
Also the numbers are a bit of a red herring, what is being removed is the right to a jury trials, one of the ancient cornerstones of English justice. "
So what’s the solution to clearing the backlog? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"3% is approx 30K - 40k cases.
That is a lot of people who will not have the opportunity to be judged by their peers.
I'm not a supporter of this, the government has made changes to everything other than the problem that causes the backlog of trials, an outdated legal system that has failed to modernise.
Also the numbers are a bit of a red herring, what is being removed is the right to a jury trials, one of the ancient cornerstones of English justice.
So what’s the solution to clearing the backlog? "
Capital punishment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"3% is approx 30K - 40k cases.
That is a lot of people who will not have the opportunity to be judged by their peers.
I'm not a supporter of this, the government has made changes to everything other than the problem that causes the backlog of trials, an outdated legal system that has failed to modernise.
Also the numbers are a bit of a red herring, what is being removed is the right to a jury trials, one of the ancient cornerstones of English justice.
So what’s the solution to clearing the backlog?
Capital punishment "
Regardless of verdict? It’s an interesting concept. Have you suggested it to Rupert Lowe? I think he’d be onboard. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 8 weeks ago
|
The people who work in the criminal justice system have been almost unilaterally against the government. I’d like to think they know what they are talking about better than David Lammy who is quite possibly the most stupid man in parliament.
Jury deliberation time is the only thing that this potentially takes out the loop and replace it with a judge’s deliberation time. Who’s to say that’s any quicker? The KC’s don’t think so.
I’d say the chances are, if a case is taking a long time to decide, it’s probably not a cut and dry case and requires discussion and careful consideration, not decided based on the political perspective of a judge.
Never been in a crown court so I don’t know the logistics, but if a jury are taking 24 hours to decide a case, use the room for another case while waiting. But the delays and backlog aren’t caused by a lack of buildings and rooms, we seemingly have empty court rooms for 20% of the time, it’s caused by lack of staff.
The government refuses to increase spending on the courts because they have nowhere to put anyone who gets a custodial sentence. The previous government had the same problem and did nothing about it. And they are only gonna serve 30% is it? Or was it 40%? And then they just escape anyway, or wrongly let out.
Seems we have unlimited money for illegal migration but no money to protect the public.
Also, many KC’s have suggested that there will be more appeals because of this, so it could actually increase the backlog. If the high court is constantly dealing with appeals from the crown courts, how will it conduct its other business?
Deport all foreign nationals who break the law. If a magistrate deems there’s enough evidence to go to court, instant deportation. This will save loads of time and clear a lot of the backlog.
Deporting all those in prison will create space for our own nationals who get sentenced to prison time, and remove the pressure on judges and magistrates to not send people to prison because there’s no space.
The counter argument will no doubt be “what if their own country doesn’t want them back”. Well what a surprise, so the UK is a dumping ground of the scum of the earth that nobody else wants and the good citizens of the UK have to have them living next to us and our schools and pay them benefits because nobody wants to give them a job?
Possible solutions to that….
They get 3 months to apply to other countries to have them, if nobody will…
Parachute them out over their own county. Job done.
Uninhabited island, drop them off, job done (this should apply to British nationals who commit serious offences or sexual offences against children, murder, armed robbery etc)
Boat to international waters. Give them a life jacket and a push, job done. (Very serious crimes only) they can make their own way to which ever country they want to break the law in next.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"3% is approx 30K - 40k cases.
That is a lot of people who will not have the opportunity to be judged by their peers.
I'm not a supporter of this, the government has made changes to everything other than the problem that causes the backlog of trials, an outdated legal system that has failed to modernise.
Also the numbers are a bit of a red herring, what is being removed is the right to a jury trials, one of the ancient cornerstones of English justice.
So what’s the solution to clearing the backlog?
Capital punishment "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"
Deport all foreign nationals who break the law. If a magistrate deems there’s enough evidence to go to court, instant deportation. This will save loads of time and clear a lot of the backlog.
"
So innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to foreign nationals? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 8 weeks ago
|
"
Deport all foreign nationals who break the law. If a magistrate deems there’s enough evidence to go to court, instant deportation. This will save loads of time and clear a lot of the backlog.
So innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to foreign nationals? "
I believe you asked for alternative solutions to clearing the backlog, other than taking away a civil right we have enjoyed for 800 years prior to this labour movement. But who cares about civil rights for white folks eh?
I didn’t say they were guilty.
You seem to think going home is a bad thing. I love going home, it’s my favourite place in the whole world. We’re doing them a favour, there’s so much crime here we need to take away people’s rights just to deal with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is this proposal only for trials where the possible/usual sentence is below 3 years?
Which given anything under 4 years is reduced by 50% and the offender released under community supervision..
Tbh I'm not massively in favour of changing the right to trial by jury but I can see the issue of just how messed up the system is across the board..
And the causes of the state its in go back decades and like defence etc are down to both the two main parties.."
No easy answer to this problem. I guess you could increase the amount of judges and court rooms to hear more cases but if that results in a sudden influx into prisons then they will possibly fail. Personally I'm also sceptical about removing the right to be heard by your peers. Even for cases where the sentence is less than 4 years. I would not want to spend 4 hours in a prison so think those that do face that should not have their basic rights removed. I would expect a party like Reform would be more interested in removing personal rights if everything I read about them is correct as opposed to Labour |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Monday: THE UK JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BROKEN
Tuesday: HOW DARE THEY REFORM THE UK JUSTICE SYSTEM!!
Let's skip over the inconvenient fact that 95% of criminal cases are already handled in Mag courts with no jury.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 8 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Monday: THE UK JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BROKEN
Tuesday: HOW DARE THEY REFORM THE UK JUSTICE SYSTEM!!
Let's skip over the inconvenient fact that 95% of criminal cases are already handled in Mag courts with no jury.
"
The number of cases that are held with a jury are between 30K and 40K a year.
The issue is not a jury it is the legal system still creaking along without any thought of change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lan157Man 8 weeks ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
We need to start building more prisons so we can get criminals off streets and being punished . It seems to me the justice system slows down to the rate at which we can deal with offenders at the end point and punishment does not fit the crime in many cases . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"We need to start building more prisons so we can get criminals off streets and being punished . It seems to me the justice system slows down to the rate at which we can deal with offenders at the end point and punishment does not fit the crime in many cases . "
Prison that only serves as punishment doesn’t work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lan157Man 8 weeks ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
"We need to start building more prisons so we can get criminals off streets and being punished . It seems to me the justice system slows down to the rate at which we can deal with offenders at the end point and punishment does not fit the crime in many cases .
Prison that only serves as punishment doesn’t work. "
I have heard this before. For me its punishment and keeping out of society.. removing liberty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"We need to start building more prisons so we can get criminals off streets and being punished . It seems to me the justice system slows down to the rate at which we can deal with offenders at the end point and punishment does not fit the crime in many cases .
Prison that only serves as punishment doesn’t work.
I have heard this before. For me its punishment and keeping out of society.. removing liberty. "
And when their term is complete, they have no job, no additional skills, and depending on length of sentence, no immediate integration with a society that didn’t wait for them.
So they reoffend. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lan157Man 8 weeks ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
"We need to start building more prisons so we can get criminals off streets and being punished . It seems to me the justice system slows down to the rate at which we can deal with offenders at the end point and punishment does not fit the crime in many cases .
Prison that only serves as punishment doesn’t work.
I have heard this before. For me its punishment and keeping out of society.. removing liberty.
And when their term is complete, they have no job, no additional skills, and depending on length of sentence, no immediate integration with a society that didn’t wait for them.
So they reoffend."
That is a choice. Of course more should be done to prevent reoffending . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to start building more prisons so we can get criminals off streets and being punished . It seems to me the justice system slows down to the rate at which we can deal with offenders at the end point and punishment does not fit the crime in many cases .
Prison that only serves as punishment doesn’t work.
I have heard this before. For me its punishment and keeping out of society.. removing liberty.
And when their term is complete, they have no job, no additional skills, and depending on length of sentence, no immediate integration with a society that didn’t wait for them.
So they reoffend.
That is a choice. Of course more should be done to prevent reoffending . "
More prisons and longer sentences clearly aren't the answer. It they were, then the US would have the lowest crime rates in the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is.
Why percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury at present? "
When decisions are made by a single judge you end up with people being locked up for wrong think, and on a side note you get mid twenties illegal immigrants granted right to stay as children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If they wanted to speed up courts genuinely they should just instruct more cases to be pushed to be kept in magistrates.
This can be done as the Hew Edwards case clearly showed. It's not to speed things up, its to make it easier to handle dissent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they wanted to speed up courts genuinely they should just instruct more cases to be pushed to be kept in magistrates.
This can be done as the Hew Edwards case clearly showed. It's not to speed things up, its to make it easier to handle dissent."
More Mag courts means fewer jury trials. I thought we were all wetting ourselves over the RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
Politics is all about 'yes men', to my knowledge the last lot of free thinking councilors, were the lambeth rate cappers. Look what happened to them.
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 7 weeks ago
|
"Starmer has won the jury trials vote. Despite some Labour MPs voting against, the overwhelming number of them decided keeping their fascist leader happy was more important than keeping their constituents happy.
Fascists don't have trial in the first place, learn a word before using. And look deeper at the subject. Not the daily mail headline
If this isn’t the final nail in Labour’s coffin, I don’t know what is. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
