ChatterBank6 mins ago
Trial Without Jury
Is it a worrying precedent that a trial of armed robbers is conducted without a jury because the cost of protecting and isolating a jury from tampering are deemed too high? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8106590.stm Is this a first step in the erosion of our justice system?
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Julnar. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It seems strange to those of us who are used to the trial by jury system. Perhaps this arrangement could be useful, where the defendants are known to be violent and have an extended network of criminal associates. In such circumstances could it be that the judicial system is taking due regard of the possible danger to the lives of the juror's families, or even the jurors themselves. It would be interesting to hear of the actual seriousness of the reasons for this decision, and also any further comments.
I think the "first step" was taken some time ago
Extention of detention without charge
Trial without jury in complex fraud cases
Double Jeopardy in serious cases
Not all of these are bad of course - especially the last case
In fact I suspect they may well get a fairer hearing.
A jury which finds itself under special protective measures is very likely to find this influences their opinions.
"If it's serious enough for this they must be dangerous"
A judge - is more likely to be much more able to objectively weigh the evidence.
Although I'd feel more comfortable if such cases were only heard by the most senior judges.
Extention of detention without charge
Trial without jury in complex fraud cases
Double Jeopardy in serious cases
Not all of these are bad of course - especially the last case
In fact I suspect they may well get a fairer hearing.
A jury which finds itself under special protective measures is very likely to find this influences their opinions.
"If it's serious enough for this they must be dangerous"
A judge - is more likely to be much more able to objectively weigh the evidence.
Although I'd feel more comfortable if such cases were only heard by the most senior judges.
I agree with jake on this one, yes a panel of Judges but perhaps five instead of just three.
The reason I say this is because with our now varied racial and religious mix, all groups could at least be seen to have been given a fair trial.
I think the days of Judge and Jury are now unfortunately outdated. I can see it will soon be almost impossible to pick an un-bias jury.
The reason I say this is because with our now varied racial and religious mix, all groups could at least be seen to have been given a fair trial.
I think the days of Judge and Jury are now unfortunately outdated. I can see it will soon be almost impossible to pick an un-bias jury.
I don't think we can assume a trial is unfair because of the racial characteristics of those involved.
I fear you are judging others by your own standards.
However there are cases where it is frankly impossible to use a jury. Like the mentioned case or ones with a huge previous media coverage like the O J Simpson one in the US or hugely comprex financial fraud cases (such as Guiness)
In such cases I think we have to acknowledge that the standard of trial by jury to which we aspire is impractical and this is the next best alternative.
Provided of course that the accused still has the right to appeal and the case is held in public.
Loss of these two would definately put us in "Guantanimo country"
I fear you are judging others by your own standards.
However there are cases where it is frankly impossible to use a jury. Like the mentioned case or ones with a huge previous media coverage like the O J Simpson one in the US or hugely comprex financial fraud cases (such as Guiness)
In such cases I think we have to acknowledge that the standard of trial by jury to which we aspire is impractical and this is the next best alternative.
Provided of course that the accused still has the right to appeal and the case is held in public.
Loss of these two would definately put us in "Guantanimo country"
jake-the-peg
<i.don't think we can assume a trial is unfair because of the racial characteristics of those involved.
I fear you are judging others by your own standards.
Even though I agreed with you and thought I was making an unbiased contribution to the post, you like others cannot help but make derogative remarks against me.
I was trying to point out that because of the ethnic and cultural mix of possible persons on trial, perhaps you could have a case of a minority being judged by a jury of persons of a conflicting majority say, a black accused person, being judged by a jury comprising of all white persons.
What I am trying to say is, for example we have various institutions etc that are specifically employed to protect the minorities ie Black Policeman's Association, The Muslim Council of Britain etc etc.
So why not have a mix on the panel of judges to fairly judge everyone.
<i.don't think we can assume a trial is unfair because of the racial characteristics of those involved.
I fear you are judging others by your own standards.
Even though I agreed with you and thought I was making an unbiased contribution to the post, you like others cannot help but make derogative remarks against me.
I was trying to point out that because of the ethnic and cultural mix of possible persons on trial, perhaps you could have a case of a minority being judged by a jury of persons of a conflicting majority say, a black accused person, being judged by a jury comprising of all white persons.
What I am trying to say is, for example we have various institutions etc that are specifically employed to protect the minorities ie Black Policeman's Association, The Muslim Council of Britain etc etc.
So why not have a mix on the panel of judges to fairly judge everyone.
1 to 9 of 9
