Academic level discourse

JENNYJET

Platinum Member
Subscriber
Subscriber
Subscriber
Dec 15, 2015
2,467
283
62
ASTWOOD BANK, WORCESTERSHIRE.
Country
United-Kingdom
It featured heavily when Judges and Juries came up in my studies and my study group nearly came to blows over interpretation of Intent versus Culpability or in legal language, Mens Rea v. Actus Reus.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
16,414
343
Wurzel Country
IMPORTANT!! To reduce spam, we request that you make a post soon after completing your registration. We request you keep your account active by posting regularly. Inactive accounts risk being deleted.
Yes
As this is the academic thread and I've mentioned the Martin jury, I've often wondered if in some cases another jury might have come to the opposite verdict on the same evidence, ie convict when the actual jury had acquitted or vice versa.

One would hope an appeal court would right any perceived wrong, at least in the case of a seemingly wrongful conviction when the convicted person could appeal. Perhaps not so easy in the case of someone who appears guilty on the evidence but who is acquitted.

Isn't there a saying along the lines that it's better for 100 guilty people to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted?

Our daughter who, before she emigrated to Australia 12 years ago, was a lay magistrate in Cheshire. Speaking in general terms she would say that it could sometimes be frustrating for her and her colleagues when they had to acquit someone they felt was guilty but the evidence wasn't quite there. This could be because of errors or omissions on the part of the police or the CPS, or purely on legal or procedural grounds.
 

JENNYJET

Platinum Member
Subscriber
Subscriber
Subscriber
Dec 15, 2015
2,467
283
62
ASTWOOD BANK, WORCESTERSHIRE.
Country
United-Kingdom
The question of odd verdicts has been addressed by a law that permits the Attorney General to appeal for the Crown if a verdict results in percieved over leniency or excessive tariff imposed. Once aquitted, the double jeopardy rule applies. Fresh evidence is required by the Crown Prosecution Service before a new charge can be brought forward.

The Lord Chancellor deals with errant judges and the Attorney deals with any evidence supplied to her by agencies when questions of jury tampering arise whilst a suspect verdict can be set aside and a retrial ordered. In any case, what comes to court must be dealt with satisfactorily, in the interests of justice.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
16,414
343
Wurzel Country
IMPORTANT!! To reduce spam, we request that you make a post soon after completing your registration. We request you keep your account active by posting regularly. Inactive accounts risk being deleted.
Yes
Thank you for setting out the law and procedures so concisely - most useful. I was thinking more of human nature on the part of jury members..

With the jury being the judge of fact, having been guided by the trial judge on the legal aspects and what the prosecution must prove, can we be sure that Jury A would come to the same conclusion as Jury B listening to the same evidence? I am assuming no misdirection by the judge or grossly perverse verdict.

It can never happen but it would be fascinating if a ghost jury sat alongside the actual jury but had no contact and deliberated separately, with the ghost jury's verdict obviously not made public.

Do juries always arrive at the verdict that the evidence indicates?

It would be improper to mention actual past cases but I can't help wondering whether a different 12 jury members would have reached an opposite verdict in some of them.

Trial by jury is not perfect, nothing ever is that involves human beings, but I suppose there is nothing else that could reasonably be put in its place as a general rule.

The Criminal Justice Act, 2003 contains several limitations on jury trial although some are not yet in force. One provision that is in force is the use of non-jury trials where jury tampering has occurred or is likely; another, not yet in force, involves serious and complicated fraud cases.
 

JENNYJET

Platinum Member
Subscriber
Subscriber
Subscriber
Dec 15, 2015
2,467
283
62
ASTWOOD BANK, WORCESTERSHIRE.
Country
United-Kingdom
There is a practice on Law courses of significance, of Mooting, the recreating of real trials with students acting as Counsel for the prosecution and defence, with a jury of students from other faculties unconnected with law. The same evidence presented but arguments formulated by the student barristers themselves and a faculty lecturer acting as judge or in this situation, moderater. The purpose to hone advocacy skills and cross examination tactics. Final verdicts are compared and contrasted with a suitably lengthy essay.

These events are taken seriously with results sent to the Bar Council and the Lord Chancellor as necessary.
 

Sherburnflyer92

Premium Member+
Subscriber
May 7, 2011
2,586
283
29
37,000FT - soon!
Are we reaching the bottom of the political cycle in the UK? Could we be reaching Labour's time in Power soon?

What I mean by that is, Conservatives have been in charge for 11 years, and the country thanks to them, is in a state that is just becoming a joke. For a G7 country, a G20 member, a leading member of NATO and what was once a world power along with our friends in the USA, we are becoming more like a banana republic. Corruption is rife, economy is fragile, NHS is screwed beyond belief, crime is on the rise, services are stretched beyond breaking point, and we are heading to a winter of discontent with no really plan. To be expected from the buffoon without an ounce of political, economic or social intelligence plan or thinking. And the laziest of Prime Ministers this country has ever seen. Not fit to serve tea to anyone before him.

So my question, is it, time we will start to see Labour lead the polls? Or is Kier really unelectable. Or is it Labour themselves? Have they split to become a far left socialist party and a centrist left party? Trouble with also Labour is they far too Green, listen to the woke leftist far too politically correct brigade who scream and shout all over twitter and are, sadly at this moment, are the ones listened to.

What we really need is someone who is radical in thinking. Someone who will tell the truth say it as it is. A Donald Trump Character, intelligent but not afraid to call out what he sees. Or is it now time that this two party political outdated voting system was thrown out of the window, into the Thames and replaced with a more representative system.

So that then begs the question what would you do had you come to power at Number 10 for first 100 days? Or what would your visions be if you were to end up in Number 10 for First 100 days?

For me:

> Regulation of Social Media without a doubt. I'd have that written up, drafted and ready to go. Everyone would need to prove ID to have a social media account and this would need to be checked and authenticated. Every account at present would need to also go through the same process. If they failed accounts permanently deleted, emailed flagged and stored, and a more rigorous check/authentication process done if that email comes back. No one can not have a profile picture neither. Regulatory body installed for Social Media. Any fines could not be less than 20% of revenue.

> Regulation of the Media. Don't ask me how I would do it. But no less of 25% fines would certainly be brought about, removal of editors/journalist would also be brought about (journalistic licences anyone?), independent body to ensures these nasty bastards are regulated and fearful of stepping out of place like they do. It happens in the financial industry no reason this cannot be done for some of the scum bags that write the vile things we see daily. Law to ensure that the media is not concentrated into powers of a certain few billionaires. I'd certainly be bringing some to court to make an example of what they did to Caroline Flack.

> Fixed Term Parliament act superseded with new act. Within that I would install a independent body that would set the elections rather than the government of the day as that is more banana republic especially over the last few years where we've seen elections called just for the hell of it. The only caveat and exception to that would be if the Prime Minister and leader of the governing party stood down from position , that would automatically trigger an election, no less then 6 months after the new Prime Minister, and leader of the governing party, has taken office but no more then 12 months. The date of this would be set by the independent body.
>Proportional representation back firmly on the agenda. Can that just change? Could I just go "right this is done"? Without need for a referendum? If a referendum needed - get me ol' pal Farage out of retirement to reform this country.

> Massive financial audit on the NHS. Independent body, looking at every single aspect of costs. Aim - Save money, procure centrally, get less money going to waste and finally, hopefully, get this going towards bodies on the front line. Regulation of companies supplying the NHS - charge more because "it's the NHS" - fine fine fine. That is wrong. I'd get businesses folk negotiating NHS contracts for equipment etc.
> Remove social care from private companies and re-install it as a NCS - National Care Service. Ran by the local Trust. People pay for care, it baffles me, but if that's the case you basically pay the NCS. Not some private millionaire. Get that up and running or been looked at.

> If now. Immediately scrap vaccine passports, set a law that makes them illegal, stop the ridiculous testing regime and get on with life.

Some ideas banded about .... be interesting to see what other peoples views are.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker.