Still think Two Tier justice does not exist?

[rubicustellitall]

Ricky Jones found not guilty..my flabber has never been so ghasted!
Anyone have any views..

Exactly. It's a feature, not a bug.

I'm open to suggestions about alternatives. However, I restate the point made by Lord Devlin, and then myself, that juries are a final backstop against bad laws. Any other system - professional jurists, investigating magistrates - would lead to a "well that's the law, no matter how evil" and that is that.

Probably not a good idea to use America as an example for everything, but the notion that a bad law should be broken (Thomas Jefferson ?) does have some merit.

Apples, oranges. She plead guilty.

I like the Norwegian system of lay judges alongside professional personally.

Whoever that is really is acting in bad faith.
An appalling level of insincerity and casual approach to the facts to try and bolster his points.

If you have to resort to lies and intentionally misleading your own followers then it doesn't say much for your arguments.

I don't understand why people think this is an example of two tier justice.

One person pleads guilty and is sentenced accordingly.

A second person pleads not guilty and is found not guilty by a jury of their peers.

Do I think that Jones should have been acquitted? No, on the basis of what I know, actually, I don't, but that's the risk you take if your legal system allows trial by jury, which ours does.

This might be evidence that juries sometimes reach questionable verdicts, but I can't see any evidence of a two-tier approach. Except for the fact that there are differences between those who pleads guilty and those who don't, which is surely to be expected?

There will be tons of right wing types trying to parade this as evidence of double standards, but the reality is, none of us can possibly know what conclusion a jury might have reached if Connolly had chosen to enter a different pleads. What we do know is that, had he chosen to pleads guilty, Jones would have been sentenced in line with the sentencing guidelines, as Connolly was.

They were presumably presented with more evixence than a video clip.

How does that work with common law ?

I don't know why it wouldn't. It's just accepting that the "jury" is by people who are trained/ chosen in a particular way. Much like magistrates. And they sit on a panel. Of course you can't maintain a jury AND the principles behind the jury system. I am just of the opinion it would likely lead to more just outcomes.

If you want to blame someone blame the jury, I have no idea why they reached that verdict, but they did.

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

He didn't tell supporters to slit the throats of people he disagreed with.

He was referring to National Front members hiding razor blades in stickers on the tube.

Oh don't come on here, being all sensible.

But all this doesn’t explain the bail/remand discrepancy.

Why was she remanded, and him bailed?

It doesn’t make sense to me. She might have pled differently had she not been locked up. They threw the book at her to make an example, people are not blind.

Depends what you mean by just.

Remember the people hiding Anne Frank were breaking the law. The people who killed her were obeying the law.

That's reason enough to be wary of anyone who wants to put "the law" above the people.

She wasn't the only one sentenced for inciting violence during the riots

Not even talking about two tier stuff anymore, but sentences in general are all over the place.

Makes me so angry to see such long custodial sentences for a tweet, and then suspended ones for actual violence and sexual assaults.

It’s obviously on my algorithm now, as the amount of suspended sentences for rape and assault I’ve seen lately. Makes me so angry.

Maybe. I think the lay judges would achieve that though. As I said, I would also personally be much more wary of the general public. Especially given the huge variation in what kind of person you might get. Like I said, it's just my opinion (albeit slightly qualified by my profession), and actually not something I feel very strongly about. I brought it up in the context of inconsistency between verdicts which is definitely more likely with a jury system.

Yes, I remember they showed a load of people being arrested and proclaiming them guilty whilst being arrested.

People just want the law applied consistently.

I remember during the riots there were gangs of Muslim men walking behind news presenters carrying machetes, and being completely ignored!

What are you saying "no no no" to?

You don't think there should be any difference in process when people plead guilty and when they plead not guilty? What does that mean in practice?

Nobody is arguing that it should be different depending where someone sits on the political spectrum, that's irrelevant.

But it's quite a leap from that to saying that the plea shouldn't make any difference either.

What's sharia got to do with any of this?

Can you set out the timelines/facts or any articles regarding bail if you happen to know.

With the judgments and sentencing etc for each they obviously take up the majority of the hits on Google when I go looking.

It appears he was initially remanded in custody also

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/credz9gl92yo

Actually, I have just read your post again, and what you've said is extraordinary.

You are saying that you want people who "plead guilty" and people who are "found not guilty" to be "treated exactly the same way". What does that even mean?

Are you saying that people who plead guilty of any crime should not be punished because someone with different political views might be found not guilty of a similar crime? So we can never sentence anyone for anything?

Or are you saying that the person who was found not guilty should be sent to prison regardless? In which case, why bother with a trial at all?

It would seem that your logic has utterly failed you.

Right wingers are really hating trial by Jury today. They will be burning their copies of the Magna Carta

Well that is another argument - and quite valid.

Luckily all the frothing here will make sure it's never given any serious attention.

In 2025, we - as a society - are capable of so many more ways to enforce punishment on people who break the law.

Also new laws should require an equal number of old ones get removed. Otherwise the logical conclusion is that at some point in the future everything will be illegal.

If you are referring to me you are pretty much as wrong as you can be about my political orientation. Assuming you are not, I reckon it's still an odd connection to make. As an aside, I am not sure the men of 1297 where the most liberal minded characters either.

Better 10 guilty men go free than an innocent one be punished.

Or are we OK with locking up innocent people now ? Bearing in mind they won't get any compensation if they are stupid enough to clear their name.