▲ 1199 ▼ Grand Jury Declines to Indict Man Caught on Camera Destroying Flock Pole (futurism.com) submitted 2 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 167 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 20 points 2 days ago (1 child) Any justice system actually. Common law especially though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 18 points 2 days ago (2 children) Common Law is better than codified law. That's the only reason we have juries and don't just let judges decide the fate of the accused. Can you imagine, in this country, judges the sole decider of your case? The reason that the UK and US have had such cuntish law enforcement is not because of english common law. It should be noted the UK cancelled some of common law's basic tenants, like the right to a jury trial, not only afforded to indictable offenses, any crime with less than 3 years imprisonment is decided by their famously haughty aristocratic judges now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 9 points 2 days ago (1 child) They actually passed that?? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 12 points 2 days ago (1 child) Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer's labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years. In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nighed@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) Pretty sure it's not active yet though, still being discussed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 7 hours ago* I was trying to verify where this was, the guardian and reuters in like 2024 or so left me with the impression it was passed, but a cursory search after your inquiry did not find the detail. I had to leave town here, Hopefully I can find out tomorrow morning. It sounded like they made the new rule but it's not in force yet from my cursory search that led me to some lackluster guardian article. Quick edit, the news did say it was passed I am sure. I have been wrong before though on stuff like this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@quokk.au 2 points 1 day ago Jury vs judge trial is a separate axis from common law vs civil law. You can have common law (where decisions of higher courts are deemed binding on lower courts) even if lower courts are all judge-only trials. You can have trials decided by a jury where every decision made by a judge is ultimately answerable only to written statute, with prior judicial judgments being at best persuasive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 18 points 2 days ago (2 children) Common Law is better than codified law. That's the only reason we have juries and don't just let judges decide the fate of the accused. Can you imagine, in this country, judges the sole decider of your case? The reason that the UK and US have had such cuntish law enforcement is not because of english common law. It should be noted the UK cancelled some of common law's basic tenants, like the right to a jury trial, not only afforded to indictable offenses, any crime with less than 3 years imprisonment is decided by their famously haughty aristocratic judges now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 9 points 2 days ago (1 child) They actually passed that?? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 12 points 2 days ago (1 child) Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer's labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years. In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nighed@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) Pretty sure it's not active yet though, still being discussed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 7 hours ago* I was trying to verify where this was, the guardian and reuters in like 2024 or so left me with the impression it was passed, but a cursory search after your inquiry did not find the detail. I had to leave town here, Hopefully I can find out tomorrow morning. It sounded like they made the new rule but it's not in force yet from my cursory search that led me to some lackluster guardian article. Quick edit, the news did say it was passed I am sure. I have been wrong before though on stuff like this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zagorath@quokk.au 2 points 1 day ago Jury vs judge trial is a separate axis from common law vs civil law. You can have common law (where decisions of higher courts are deemed binding on lower courts) even if lower courts are all judge-only trials. You can have trials decided by a jury where every decision made by a judge is ultimately answerable only to written statute, with prior judicial judgments being at best persuasive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 9 points 2 days ago (1 child) They actually passed that?? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 12 points 2 days ago (1 child) Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer's labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years. In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nighed@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) Pretty sure it's not active yet though, still being discussed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 7 hours ago* I was trying to verify where this was, the guardian and reuters in like 2024 or so left me with the impression it was passed, but a cursory search after your inquiry did not find the detail. I had to leave town here, Hopefully I can find out tomorrow morning. It sounded like they made the new rule but it's not in force yet from my cursory search that led me to some lackluster guardian article. Quick edit, the news did say it was passed I am sure. I have been wrong before though on stuff like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 12 points 2 days ago (1 child) Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer's labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years. In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nighed@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) Pretty sure it's not active yet though, still being discussed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 7 hours ago* I was trying to verify where this was, the guardian and reuters in like 2024 or so left me with the impression it was passed, but a cursory search after your inquiry did not find the detail. I had to leave town here, Hopefully I can find out tomorrow morning. It sounded like they made the new rule but it's not in force yet from my cursory search that led me to some lackluster guardian article. Quick edit, the news did say it was passed I am sure. I have been wrong before though on stuff like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) Pretty sure it's not active yet though, still being discussed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 7 hours ago* I was trying to verify where this was, the guardian and reuters in like 2024 or so left me with the impression it was passed, but a cursory search after your inquiry did not find the detail. I had to leave town here, Hopefully I can find out tomorrow morning. It sounded like they made the new rule but it's not in force yet from my cursory search that led me to some lackluster guardian article. Quick edit, the news did say it was passed I am sure. I have been wrong before though on stuff like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 point 7 hours ago* I was trying to verify where this was, the guardian and reuters in like 2024 or so left me with the impression it was passed, but a cursory search after your inquiry did not find the detail. I had to leave town here, Hopefully I can find out tomorrow morning. It sounded like they made the new rule but it's not in force yet from my cursory search that led me to some lackluster guardian article. Quick edit, the news did say it was passed I am sure. I have been wrong before though on stuff like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 2 points 1 day ago Jury vs judge trial is a separate axis from common law vs civil law. You can have common law (where decisions of higher courts are deemed binding on lower courts) even if lower courts are all judge-only trials. You can have trials decided by a jury where every decision made by a judge is ultimately answerable only to written statute, with prior judicial judgments being at best persuasive. permalink fedilink source parent