Wednesday, February 17, 2010

We Must Defend The Jury System

The Ministry of Justice that newly formed body split from the Home Office just a few short years ago has commissioned a report that has decreed the population too thick to comprehend what Judges are saying in trials. The report’s authors seem to bemoan the very notion that people be involved in trials.

Let me put this straight, every report commissioned in the last 13 years under this Labour Government has returned the exact observations and recommendations it was commissioned to. To my mind, this is not some independent report that has produced some startling evidence; it is the latest in a preordained coercion of attempts to lend a commission, a report or a public consultation to a predetermined action or decision. In this case, the removal of the Jury system in the United Kingdom.

The Jury System is wonderful in its conception in that a pool of one's peers are asked to come and sit in deliberation on the questions of fact as presented in a trial so as to establish, whether the facts of the case have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge sits in the trial to rule on the question of law and the application of law as appropriate. If people are having difficulty understanding Judges, then I would suggest Judges be instructed to explain their instructions in lay-persons terms and allow for follow up questions so that there are fewer misunderstandings; they are after all there as the expert of the law, Juries are there to rule on the facts. What we should not do, as this report seemingly points to is the removal of Jury Trials altogether. The removal of ordinary people from political system has long been complete, let us not allow for ourselves to be removed from the criminal justice system also. There is no real evidence that shows that any 12 people are less able to comprehend the complexities of a case any better or worse than a judge who may well be educated, but only so far as where the law is concerned. Why would a 60 year old judge be expected to have a better comprehension of a complex fraud trial involving complex online transfer than say a 19 year old of average intelligence or education? Even if an individual Juror has difficulties in his or her understanding there are 11 others there listening to the same evidence and for who there must be deliberations with.  Of course Jurors don't always comprehend the law, but that is not their primary purpose!

Rule by "expert" is a longstanding leftist goal. "Experts" can detach themselves from the reality and emotion of a situation; they would instantly join our ever enlarging ruling elite. They are men with briefcases who have a professional agenda and standing to consider. A Jury is intended to be a representation of our peers, so as to see if 12 people would rule the facts to also be so. I am not saying the decision to legislate against one of our basic freeborn rights would even be put to us, but if it were we would indeed reject the notion as an amazing lack of faith in our own abilities.

We don't need less Jury's we need more. We don’t need more experts, we need less. Juries are not cheap, they are not time or cost efficient but where the justice of freeborn men and women are concerned it was never intended that our system of law be first and foremost anything other than fair.


Witterings From Witney said...

This is no more than a subtle ploy to prepare the ground for the introduction of Corpus Juris!

Cynical? Yes, but more than likely true!

Personally I am just waiting for the next 'power' (the right to decide something ourselves) that gets taken by the EU and then to see Cast-Iron's reaction to that!

Tarquin said...

What I noticed about this poll was that 2/3 'don't understand everything'

It could be one word (latin probably), it doesn't mean the jury are clueless

as usual, you can make a poll say whatever you want

personally, however I was expecting more of a call for judges and lawyers to use more simplistic words or write instructions rather than increase jury-free trials