United States Corrupt Twattery

[Scouse]

You describe trial by jury as nirvana? Normally that's reserved for an unachievable utopian state not a centuries-established fundamental principle of justice.

According to the IFS there's been a 33% cut in justice spending since 2007/8 with capital spending cuts in the 2010's of up to 70% that led to court closures.

Now spending is back to historical levels we're still suffering from those deep fiscal shocks but, (thanks to supercharged legal immigration! *gasp!*) per-person spending is about 20% lower than historical levels.

So here's the fix - take the money we gave to the rich people on the back of the 2008 financial crash and rebuild our decimated system of justice and restore it to it's former function.

It's not a fucking crime wave - it's policy choices.

We should be fucking rioting over the possibility of losing a fundamental pillar of justice - not aquiescing to a state judge and jury system (and maybe if reform get in also an executioner?)

It's a fucking disgrace. Trial by a jury of peers is globally, rightly, regarded as a jewel in the crown of justice - and this wanky government is making (yet another) bad choice.

 

[Tom]

Ooof. You're ok with the state deciding the future of people.

Already happens in summary offences. I don't see much outrage about that.

Maybe you'd like to sit on a jury for 12 months deciding someone's guilt in an extremely complex financial case?

 

[Tom]

And 75% of them are motoring offences - and the vast majority of them are sorted by post when people plead guilty to speeding and get a fine.

Er no, you get a letter offering you the option of a fine, a course, or to defend the matter in court. So no, the vast majority of motoring offences in court are not sorted by post.

 

[Scouse]

Er no, you get a letter offering you the option of a fine, a course, or to defend the matter in court. So no, the vast majority of motoring offences in court are not sorted by post.

They're counted like that.

 

[Scouse]

Maybe you'd like to sit on a jury for 12 months deciding someone's guilt in an extremely complex financial case?

Better than working. And I already commented on this - as have judges. (Better outcomes with juries is the tl:dr version).

 

[Scouse]

Guilty until proven innocent: shoppers falsely identified by facial recognition system struggle to clear their names

People shamed and ordered to leave shops after being misidentified then ‘given no help’ to investigate verdicts

www.theguardian.com

Why not attatch no jury/state decisions to this? Gets "justice" done quick eh? And quickness (and cheapness) is the arbiter of what justice truly is.

 

[DaGaffer]

They're counted like that.

No they're not. The figures I posted in an earlier post pointed that out.

 

[caLLous]

I didn't realise juries were currently involved in the decision to kick people out of shops... no wonder there's such a backlog.

 

[Scouse]

I didn't realise juries were currently involved in the decision to kick people out of shops... no wonder there's such a backlog.

There's no point in discussion if you deliberately misconstrue the obvious points being made.