I agree that jurys are necessary, but mostly for public confidence and symbolic reasons.
To say that they are an 800 year old cornerstone of British Justice is just wrong. Scots law is totally different and didn't develop trial by jury till quite a bit after England and Wales. In England and Wales, can you really count a trial by jury of only property owning men who already know the defendant and don't like him, as worthwhile and democratic? No of course not, that's like saying women got the vote in 1832. Until the 18th century, you didn't even have a right to be defended in capital offences in England (this was a guaranteed right in Scotland).
I think I might fancy that new Dr Who boy so so so much. Someone said I look like Amy Pond (I don't) He just messed up something Christine Blakeley asked him to do<333 As if she would be a good assistant wot a bint lol.
Sorry I lost my train of thought to the one show in that last paragraph. Trial without jury doesn't preclude there being a fair trial. Why should a judge - who must give reasons for his decision - be any less qualified to reach a decision based on fact and law than a jury who DON'T have to give reasons? Why do people think it's a fundamental right? It's desirable and important and stuff, yeah. But why is it 1. an injustice and 2. an infringment of our rights if we're tried without one? I honestly would like someone to convince me of either, I am open to being convinced.
(If anything, the judge knows what evidence is relevant for consideration. Everyone knows juries apply directions wrong. Should he then double-think what he knows to be right in procedure, and also compensate by attributing false beliefs to absent jurors...? Would this be better for justice? If a judge "got it wrong" about justice, there would be grounds for an appeal. If juries "got it wrong" it would be much harder because they can't be scrutinised.)
"There's a poo in the hall" - Bianca.God.
What should I have to drink?
- southern comfort
- pomegrante stuff
I have limes and lemonade.