The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
From AOL News:
THOUSANDS of defendants will lose the right to trial by jury, according to a leaked Government document.
The plan will be revealed as part of a sweeping overhaul of the criminal justice system to be unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett next week.
A White Paper will propose that judges should be able to sit alone in trials in complex cases or where they believe a jury might be subjected to intimidation.
A draft of the paper leaked to The Independent also proposes the abolition of the double jeopardy rule - which prohibits the retrial of a defendant on the same charges.
This will apply in cases of "a grave offence punishable by imprisonment", and cases with compelling new evidence where a retrial is "in the interests of justice".
In another move to cut down on costly Crown Court trials, magistrates' maximum sentencing powers would be doubled from six to 12 months.
Other measures in the White Paper on the reform of the criminal justice system include proposals to reduce the numbers of middle class people who exempt themselves from jury service because of work obligations.
According to reports, the reforms, intended to improve conviction rates, will include new police powers to impose bail conditions, including electronic tagging, on suspects who have yet to be charged.
The White Paper argues the criminal justice system is currently stacked in favour of the defence.
The draft version of the document states: "There are too many cases where tactical manoeuvres designed to secure acquittals by disrupting the process mean the right verdict is not reached, and that is simply not good enough."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I agree that it seems as though the justics system does currently favour defendants, but then that could be argued as a good thing. Maybe the bovernment just wants to look like it's doing something to lower crime rates?
Thoughts?
THOUSANDS of defendants will lose the right to trial by jury, according to a leaked Government document.
The plan will be revealed as part of a sweeping overhaul of the criminal justice system to be unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett next week.
A White Paper will propose that judges should be able to sit alone in trials in complex cases or where they believe a jury might be subjected to intimidation.
A draft of the paper leaked to The Independent also proposes the abolition of the double jeopardy rule - which prohibits the retrial of a defendant on the same charges.
This will apply in cases of "a grave offence punishable by imprisonment", and cases with compelling new evidence where a retrial is "in the interests of justice".
In another move to cut down on costly Crown Court trials, magistrates' maximum sentencing powers would be doubled from six to 12 months.
Other measures in the White Paper on the reform of the criminal justice system include proposals to reduce the numbers of middle class people who exempt themselves from jury service because of work obligations.
According to reports, the reforms, intended to improve conviction rates, will include new police powers to impose bail conditions, including electronic tagging, on suspects who have yet to be charged.
The White Paper argues the criminal justice system is currently stacked in favour of the defence.
The draft version of the document states: "There are too many cases where tactical manoeuvres designed to secure acquittals by disrupting the process mean the right verdict is not reached, and that is simply not good enough."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I agree that it seems as though the justics system does currently favour defendants, but then that could be argued as a good thing. Maybe the bovernment just wants to look like it's doing something to lower crime rates?
Thoughts?
And yeah, i spent about 5 minutes finding that quote : )
Your Honour wrote:
> I agree that it seems as though the justics system does currently
> favour defendants, but then that could be argued as a good thing.
Sir David Napley (bloke who knows what he's talking about):
"Despite the high incidence of crime it will be a sorry day for England if the protection of the innocent [from wrongful conviction] ever takes second place to the conviction of the guilty."
However, this has to be in the context of demanding a high standard of proof of guilt by the prosecution, and allowing the defence the best suited reasonable legal system in which to protect themselves by showing their innocence or the flaws of the prosecution.
When people are avoiding a trial by the use of legal 'tactics', it's equivocal protecting the innocent by not making them stand trial at all, IMO.
So providedmeasures deal only with loopholes used by the defence to avoid trial, not trying to secure more convictions by tilting the trial process to favour prosectution, or lowering the standard of proof needed for conviction, it's okay by me.
On the point of trial by jury, the Human Rights Act (and European Convention on Human Rights, which the HRA basically just implements into UK legislation (though the ECHR technically has legal effect anyway, but the government like to act like binding european legislation is only valid if they legislate for it (some is, but some applies anyway)))...
..anyway, there is a right to a 'fair' trial, not necessarily a trial by jury, indeed, there are already pleanty of criminal trials that don't take place before a jury.
However, more serious cases do go before a jury. Why? Because it's better, and because it 'looks' better, at getting the right result.
It may be necessary to cut corners and remove the trial by jury sometimes in order to relieve pressure (and reduce delays) on the legal system. But i do believe it's a lower quality of trial, and any attempts to reduce the use of jury trials needs to be closely examined to make sure the government don't sell us all down the river next time we're falsely accused of burglary.
> I agree that it seems as though the justics system does currently
> favour defendants, but then that could be argued as a good thing.
Sir David Napley (bloke who knows what he's talking about):
"Despite the high incidence of crime it will be a sorry day for England if the protection of the innocent [from wrongful conviction] ever takes second place to the conviction of the guilty."
However, this has to be in the context of demanding a high standard of proof of guilt by the prosecution, and allowing the defence the best suited reasonable legal system in which to protect themselves by showing their innocence or the flaws of the prosecution.
When people are avoiding a trial by the use of legal 'tactics', it's equivocal protecting the innocent by not making them stand trial at all, IMO.
So providedmeasures deal only with loopholes used by the defence to avoid trial, not trying to secure more convictions by tilting the trial process to favour prosectution, or lowering the standard of proof needed for conviction, it's okay by me.
On the point of trial by jury, the Human Rights Act (and European Convention on Human Rights, which the HRA basically just implements into UK legislation (though the ECHR technically has legal effect anyway, but the government like to act like binding european legislation is only valid if they legislate for it (some is, but some applies anyway)))...
..anyway, there is a right to a 'fair' trial, not necessarily a trial by jury, indeed, there are already pleanty of criminal trials that don't take place before a jury.
However, more serious cases do go before a jury. Why? Because it's better, and because it 'looks' better, at getting the right result.
It may be necessary to cut corners and remove the trial by jury sometimes in order to relieve pressure (and reduce delays) on the legal system. But i do believe it's a lower quality of trial, and any attempts to reduce the use of jury trials needs to be closely examined to make sure the government don't sell us all down the river next time we're falsely accused of burglary.
The government has to appear to be doing something on crime, especially in light of the recent reports, which put Labour in not too good a light. With this, they could be trying to appease the electorate, but they shouldn't even bother, as people aren't going to vote Conservative - they don't even have any concrete policy as yet!
P.S. The irony of someone called Your Honour talking about courts and crime is not lost on me. :)
P.S. The irony of someone called Your Honour talking about courts and crime is not lost on me. :)
From AOL News:
THOUSANDS of defendants will lose the right to trial by jury, according to a leaked Government document.
The plan will be revealed as part of a sweeping overhaul of the criminal justice system to be unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett next week.
A White Paper will propose that judges should be able to sit alone in trials in complex cases or where they believe a jury might be subjected to intimidation.
A draft of the paper leaked to The Independent also proposes the abolition of the double jeopardy rule - which prohibits the retrial of a defendant on the same charges.
This will apply in cases of "a grave offence punishable by imprisonment", and cases with compelling new evidence where a retrial is "in the interests of justice".
In another move to cut down on costly Crown Court trials, magistrates' maximum sentencing powers would be doubled from six to 12 months.
Other measures in the White Paper on the reform of the criminal justice system include proposals to reduce the numbers of middle class people who exempt themselves from jury service because of work obligations.
According to reports, the reforms, intended to improve conviction rates, will include new police powers to impose bail conditions, including electronic tagging, on suspects who have yet to be charged.
The White Paper argues the criminal justice system is currently stacked in favour of the defence.
The draft version of the document states: "There are too many cases where tactical manoeuvres designed to secure acquittals by disrupting the process mean the right verdict is not reached, and that is simply not good enough."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I agree that it seems as though the justics system does currently favour defendants, but then that could be argued as a good thing. Maybe the bovernment just wants to look like it's doing something to lower crime rates?
Thoughts?
THOUSANDS of defendants will lose the right to trial by jury, according to a leaked Government document.
The plan will be revealed as part of a sweeping overhaul of the criminal justice system to be unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett next week.
A White Paper will propose that judges should be able to sit alone in trials in complex cases or where they believe a jury might be subjected to intimidation.
A draft of the paper leaked to The Independent also proposes the abolition of the double jeopardy rule - which prohibits the retrial of a defendant on the same charges.
This will apply in cases of "a grave offence punishable by imprisonment", and cases with compelling new evidence where a retrial is "in the interests of justice".
In another move to cut down on costly Crown Court trials, magistrates' maximum sentencing powers would be doubled from six to 12 months.
Other measures in the White Paper on the reform of the criminal justice system include proposals to reduce the numbers of middle class people who exempt themselves from jury service because of work obligations.
According to reports, the reforms, intended to improve conviction rates, will include new police powers to impose bail conditions, including electronic tagging, on suspects who have yet to be charged.
The White Paper argues the criminal justice system is currently stacked in favour of the defence.
The draft version of the document states: "There are too many cases where tactical manoeuvres designed to secure acquittals by disrupting the process mean the right verdict is not reached, and that is simply not good enough."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I agree that it seems as though the justics system does currently favour defendants, but then that could be argued as a good thing. Maybe the bovernment just wants to look like it's doing something to lower crime rates?
Thoughts?