Lammy to remove Juries for most cases

[Bumblebee72]

It being reported by the Times that Lammy is going to remove the right to choose a jury for all but a few cases. This is a shocking role back of British rights.

And they say we need to worry about Reform........

He's got no choice but to accept Lord Leveson's recommendations.

The Crown Court is overwhelmed and has been chronically underfunded since before 2010.

Think about the average member of the public, would you really want them deciding your fate?

Are you happy with the number of rapists who aren’t found guilty? Or do you genuinely think the majority of rape victims are liars?

There are many countries without jury’s or with really restricted use of a jury. If it allows the court system to get moving again I’d be keen to see the proposals.

If I was falsely accused by the state of having done something I would rather than 12 randomly chosen people decide than one person. There are lots of crimes which are subjective.

Rape decisions are irrelevant since that is one area not proposed to change.

Most decisions would be by a panel, not just one person, certainly if we follow the lead of other countries in this.

So rather than funding it just remove one the core premises of Justice - that 12 of your peers decide on guilt or not. Maybe they could change the core premise of medicine from "not causing harm" to "do whatever's cheapest".

Spot on. If you have ever done jury service you wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of some of the “thinking” that goes into verdicts.

Isn't that basically what the assisted dying bill is? A money saving exercise?

This goes beyond Levison recommendations though

What he’s proposing goes beyond what Leveson suggested. And it certainly wouldn’t save any time …

Jury trials to be scrapped except for alleged rapists and killers

https://www.thetimes.com/article/a1a2142e-1787-446e-99cf-5ef9413c1f78?shareToken=00fbf2a63c7523c43f4c1a0a96ba2b42

Not really. Assisted dying is your body your choice. For the incorrectly accused, this is removing a right for when you liberty has already taken away by the force of the state.

I've done jury service twice and from what I have seen from inside the jury room. I would rather see a professional panel instead of the current system.

It couldn't be any worse, will likely be better and hopefully will improve the system.

I wonder whether those posters in support of this would still agree if Reform were bringing this in? Or the Tories? It's the same with digital ID.

It depends entirely on what it's being replaced with.

The jury system is not great.

If anyone saw the thread yesterday about the masseuse who was sexually propositioned at work and the responses to it, you'd have no faith in 12 members of the public holding your fate in their hands. There are a shocking number of people who are hard of thinking or just plain sexist/racist/homophobic.

A panel of people educated and experienced in the law would be better imo. We would need an efficient and effective appeals system as well.

Good. Faster trials and better outcomes is best for us all.

How would it be faster? Most people have said they would expect a panel of judges - where they are they going to come from? If you needed 3 qualified people it would cut the number by cases that could be heard by 3. The report in the Times just says Lammy is proposing a single Judge - which would save time.

I understand this. I once did some admin work on a complicated insurance/ finance fraud case. It was a jury trial, no way on earth could you realistically expect 12 random members of the public to understand it. It was very complicated and very “boring” but serious finance consequences.

Or would Lammy has leaked this this week if it wasn't for the fact that everyone is focused on the omni-fuck-up budget coming tomorrow. Maybe Reeves will help reduce the court queues with a victim tax so less people come forward.

It sounds shocking and I don't really agree on principle. However I have done jury service once and was not impressed.

A dominant man took charge and basically directed the proceedings, most people were too intimidated to cross him. It was quite a while ago and I was in my early twenties and did not have enough confidence to stand up to anyone. And on top of that most of the jurers wanted to get it done quickly and would have made a quick judgement to go home. It did not leave me confident in the process.

I can see a logic for allowing the option of a judge led trial for complex cases. But say my house was burgled and I injured the burgler defending my house. I would must rather that 12 aveerage people decide if I had used responsible force than a single person having to decide what a responsible person would have done.

This would also help with overcrowding in prisons. You could be on to something with the victim tax.

Note is it reported that Lammy is also proposing to remove the automatic right of appeal for convictions. So who know what circumstances the judges decision will be final and which we be allowed to be appealed.

What?! that's very concerning.

It depends on what alternative is offered.

But I'm definitely of the view that it's worth looking into alternatives to jury trials.

I don't find the mere suggestion of doing away with jury trials to be problematic. I wouldn't want to face a jury of under-educated, prejudiced, bored people who just want to go home if my freedom was hanging in the balance. But what we don't want is a system that's even worse! Which one judge and no appeal would be.

I don't think you've ever sat on a jury. If you had you'd have a different opinion.