Thread 13 Starmer - facts are for lefties

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5214955-thread-12-starmer-from-prescott-to-rayner-working-class-grit?page=40&reply=140341929

Now that I can agree on 😀

It would be a good start.

I wouldn't lose wages.

But my hours would be longer and commute longer per day - even to my nearest criminal courts.

With a high number of families having 2 working parents juggling childcare, people affected by COL etc I do think it's harder now for people to commit.

It does have implications for outcomes. Magistrates and judges are much tougher than juries. They are lot less engaged with the kind of showboating and prejudice playing that criminal defence counsel may do to to try and show doubt.

In some cases, and consequently for prosecution of certain crimes, particularly domestic violence or sexual assault, you might see a significant increase in conviction rates.

A judge in their time will have been defence or prosecution counsel. Maybe both. They will be a lot sharper to some of the frankly incredible bollocks you hear in criminal courts.

Having done jury service, I hope I never end up being accused (wrongly) and taken to a trial by jury for 'my' crime. I was absolutely shocked by the process, as well as how thick (and often very racist) the other jurors were.

A friend of mine was recently on jury service and she said the same.

This is my objection. I see my fellow human beings around me. I do not trust them to be able to handle the intricacies of a criminal case and reach a good decision.

It was the process as well as the other jurors. We weren't told anything about how to 'listen' to the case - no paper/pens provided for any of us if we wanted to take notes. Both cases I sat on were relatively straight forward, but it would still have been useful to write down key thoughts, etc, so they could be discussed in the jury room - which is really important, as then you're discussing the actual facts/evidence as presented by the prosecution/defence - not just on the basis of opinion/prejudice.

Then when we were sent to the jury room, no instruction about how to proceed, other than being told we had to elect a foreman.

We were given a pack of photos etc and a notepad and pens!

I have done it twice. I found it in equal parts boring and troubling.

My first case required a translator and interpreter. It was interminable.

My friend, who was on jury service at the same time as me had a rape trial . He had to have counselling afterwards.

Germany doesn't have a jury system for criminal cases, France a more limited jury system and stopped using them for rape cases.
We don't use a jury in the court of appeal.

If we want people not to have to wait many years for a trial, then we'll have to change what we do now, its clearly not working.

At the end of the day, a trial is only as good as the evidence put in front of it and tbh, given some peoples stupidity in their voting choices, despite the evidence, i think i might prefer to be judged by professionals rather than idiots.

My cousin was a barrister, she also has said that many people on juries have zero understanding and often reach very strange conclusions.

Speaking of someone who should be before the courts on several charges, in my opinion.

Walked past the local bookshop, the autobiography by Boris Johnson is now half price and placed in the window next to Bill Bailey's My Animals and Other Animals.

Not very kind to the animals I think.

One effect or removing juries is you will remove any oversight of police misbehaviour.

Judges and magistrates are paid to believe the police. Remember Lord Dennings "appalling vista" ?

Imagine Wayne Couzens (part of the establishment) walking free because magistrates (part of the establishment) overseen by a judge (part of the establishment) were hearing the case.

No MP would ever be found guilty. Of anything.

Of course there is the possibility to invert the system. No juries for trials, and juries for appeals. But I bet no one has thought of that.

Do you honestly believe that there is no oversight of police misbehaviour in countries which don't have jury systems?

The implications are certainly not I favour of repeat offenders. Juries currently have no idea of a perpetrators criminal record if they have one. Judges would be well aware of that.

I too have heard of cases where it was obvious that the defendant was guilty. A jury did not convict. Sometimes the reason was not obvious, other times it was very obvious that a huge amount of prejudice was in play in the decision. To say the jury system is fair on minority groups is imo wrong. Certainly if I were not a white male I would be concerned. Juries do not have to explain their decisions.

Other countries without jury systems have evolved ways to keep the police - indeed the powers of the state - in check.

They weren't arrived at by simply removing juries from a system that has evolved around them.

You need to remember that Britain - certainly England - has a long and pround tradition of looking at other ways of doing things, and then finding the worst possible way of implementing then.

Remember when we managed to introduce photoID driving licences that were absolutely useless without the paper counterpart ?

In my life time, what oversight of the Police has prevented multiple injustices from occurring, from the IRA bombings & false convictions, to the miners strike to Hillsborough to Wayne Couzens..

The Police have mislead, hidden evidence and protected their own.

I don't have your faith in the jury system let alone the Police.

We sent far to many people to jail who were innocent.

Time for change, justice is not served when victims are waiting up to 7 years for a trial.

Nice to see you all

Little Tennyson was sulking because he couldn't go out last weekend.

Saying that the gossamer thin protections we already have failed many times really isn't a great argument for removing them all together.

On that basis the police themselves are pretty useless. Maybe we should do away with them and rely on hue and cry ?

But in her web she still delights
To weave the mirror's magic sights,
For often through the silent nights
A funeral, with plumes and lights
And music, went to Camelot:
Or when the moon was overhead,
Came two young lovers lately wed;
"I am half sick of shadows," said
The Lady of Shalott.

I agree that a change of systems needs to be well planned and carefully implemented, but it is not impossible to do. Given that on a population level we are already worshipping the Cult of Thick, I'll take my chances with a non jury system.

Certainly if I were not a white male I would be concerned. Juries do not have to explain their decisions.

The first case I sat on, the defendant was a young black woman. Accused of ABH. The prosecution evidence was terrible - each witness gave different, often contradictory accounts of what had happened. So we would have to find her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. (Although we were not advised in any way by the judge). We troop off to the jury room, and the very first thing that was said, by a middle-aged, white man: “you can tell she’s guilty, these blacks are all the same”.

I'd love to say I was surprised BIWI but I am not.

Nick Candy interview in the Times - it seems he yearns for the way of life he has found in Dubai and Abu Dhabi which I think tells you everything you need to know.

I agree that a change of systems needs to be well planned and carefully implemented, but it is not impossible to do.

(Looks at Brexit)

you were saying ?

He's a cunt.

I never said it was going to be easy! Brexit is a poor analogy, because Brexit was never feasible in the first place.

It is feasible to put a man on the moon. I still have zero faith the UK could do it.