251
Starmer announces resignation as prime minister and leader of the Labour party (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 months ago (10 children)

They say the proposal is to make some trials currently conducted by a jury judge-only.

Also known as abolishing the jury.

Have another source, why not:

https://www.justice.org.uk/briefings/plans-to-restrict-the-right-to-jury-trial

The majority of crime falls within the remit of < 3 year sentencing, so the majority of trials would have trial by jury removed. Your reading of what is happening is so pedantic as to be outwith the realm of reasonable understanding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The majority of crimes are already summary only, that's just the consequence of there being a lot more petty thefts and speeding than murders.

    I'm not a fan of the impression that moving more cases from either way to summary only is being done for reasons of costs, but you are making it sound like this is trial by jury going away for everything when it very much isn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    If we're going back down the route of pedantry, the majority of crime goes undealt with, then after that the next most is handled by police and wardens without the court system involved at all. yOU Are mAkING iT SOUNd LiKe the MAJOriTY of cRime IS DeaLT wiTH by anYBodY WheN it veRy mUCh ISn'T.

    Many summary crimes are what are called "either way" which means you can admit your guilt and be sentenced by a judge in a magistrates court, or you can profess your innocence and go to crown court for a trial by jury.

    Why do you think most cases are summary? Do you think it's because it's petty crime with non-prison sentences that the CPS are very confident they'll win because the defendant definitely is guilty and professes their guilt in court to get it over with? That's not what anybody up in arms about this change cares about. They care about the trials where the defendant professes their innocence and could have life changing consequences if incorrectly found guilty.

    Ultimately, do you think anybody standing in the dock gives a fuck whether it hasn't been 100% abolished? It will be abolished for most. It will be abolished for anybody claiming innocence. It was a contributing factor as to why Starmer has had to go. The legal profession is outraged at this immense overreach by the government and has kicked up a stink about it.

    Many legal scholars and journalists have used the term abolished. The 50 people who upvoted the comment seemed to understand what I meant. This pedantry aids nobody except the scumbags trying to remove legal safeguards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    yOU Are mAkING iT SOUNd LiKe the MAJOriTY of cRime IS DeaLT wiTH by anYBodY WheN it veRy mUCh ISn’T.

    Very mature argument. I never said anything of the sort, and if anything the bulk of crimes that dont get prosecuted are likely to be summary only anyway (shoplifting and the like).

    And you seem to be mistaken on that the only way to be sentenced by a magistrate is if you plead guilty. It isn't, trials can also go before a magistrate to determine guilt is the offence isnt indictable only (and the magistrate doesnt think it is too complex and needs to be sent to crown court). The defendant may then then request for it to go to crown court instead, which comes with larger sentences possible (magistrates cannot issue terms of more than 12 months), longer time until trial, and a full jury.

    What is being proposed is that right to request crown court is being removed for some either way cases. Whether its a good thing or not I dont have the expertise to say, I dont like the erosion of jury trials, but I also dont like that people can have their lives ruined by being stuck in limbo for 5 years waiting for a case to prove their innocence either.

    Fundamentally, the point is that there is already a class of crimes which do not get a jury trial, a class which can get a jury trial and a class which must get a jury trial. The proposed changes would move some offences from the second category into the first. I dont see how calling that "the abolishment of jury trials" is an accurate representation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I dont have the expertise to say

    I dont see how calling that "the abolishment of jury trials" is an accurate representation.

    Then read those who do. I already provided this source previously.

    Motion text

    That this House expresses grave concern at recent Government proposals to abolish or severely restrict the right to trial by jury in England and Wales by limiting jury trials to cases attracting sentences of less than three years; notes that trial by jury has been a centuries-old constitutional safeguard and cornerstone of liberty and democracy in our country; further notes that a jury of one's peers plays a unique role in ensuring fairness and impartiality, drawing on diverse life experiences, local standards, and community values when evaluating evidence and credibility; is deeply troubled that replacing juries with judge-only courts for most criminal trials risks concentrating judicial power in a way that undermines transparency, public confidence, and judicial independence; recognises that the courts system faces serious challenges, including an unprecedented case backlog, long delays for victims and defendants, and pressure on resources; therefore calls on the Government to abandon proposals to abolish or restrict jury trials, and instead commit to increasing judicial sitting days, recruiting more recorders to sit in the Crown Courts, utilising disused court space, modernising court capacity, directing the Crown Prosecution Service to review cases where a lesser plea may be acceptable, and instructing the independent bar to review cases stalled while awaiting court time; and affirms that there are proper alternatives to put victims at the forefront of the justice system without attacking the fundamental right to trial before one’s peers of twelve good men, women and true.

    https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/64854/jury-trial-rights

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Ok if you're not going to address my points and instead just parrot the text of a motion (which says "proposals to abolish or severely restrict the right to trial by jury in England and Wales by limiting jury trials to cases attracting sentences of less than three years") which clearly states it is only talking about a subset then I'm done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Simple question for you: after this is enacted, will there or will there not be jury trials in England and Wales?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    For the vast majority of people, no. For every single one of them, trial by jury is gone. It has been abolished for them.

    And then, how long do you think until the world of political spin pushes for the removal of that right for murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc? How many will be willing to stick their neck out to defend those people's right to a trial by jury?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Why not, instead of wriggling around, answer the question? It'll only take a tiny amount of movement on your part, and you can still get your main point across, which is that you don't approve of removing jury trials from that many people. It'll feel good, I guarantee it. We can agree about something, have tea, and go home happy.

    Actually maybe lemonade would be better today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    What's your goal here? What do you think you're achieving by being a condescending pedant?

    What's to gain by defending the removal of a means in which The People prevent miscarriages of justice, which has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries?

    Do you think David Lammy will personally hand you a get out jail free card, or is it because your ego is so pathetically fragile you can't stand on occasion being wrong about something?

    I don't like throwing around the word bootlicker, it's done far too much in online discourse, but you're acting like the epitome of a bootlicker right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago

    Truth in political discourse is important. You said something untrue. What you call pedantry I call a commitment to the truth, even if the truth doesn't fully support me at every turn. You're happy to fudge the truth as long as the vibes are right: that's not good enough. The ends don't justify the means; if you sacrifice truth you lose credibility, if you lose credibility there's no point even having political debate: you may as well just yell insults.

    Condescending

    You can't answer a straight question about the statement you yourself made. I'd have more respect for you if you had just said "no" and doubled down on the lie.

    Bootlicker

    In my experience, this is most often used to describe someone presenting an inconvenient truth. There's a simple remedy though: tell the truth. It'll set you free, as they say.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent