Called it!
No, because we brought those in because juries would be intimidated by the IRA.
Not because we don’t like the fact they may have consciences.
1 Like
No thanks. I trust juries more than the judiciary on this.
2 Likes
I don’t particuarly trust either both have been known to make absurd decisions.
1 Like
I’d rather have the juries.
The problem with the judges is you know which way some will go before you even start, so you’d see huge efforts go into avoiding particular judges. We’d be like the Americans and their jury construction exercises.
2 Likes
Makes sense, it’s easier to prove and takes a lot of the politics out of the case.
I’d bet you a shiny pound that they did long self important pre-prepared statements which are basically full and frank but justify their actions as not a crime because they were presenting a worse crime etc etc followed by a “no comment”.
If the base offences are basically admitted why over complicate with an offence which isn’t going to made much if any difference to the sentence?
It’s why I shudder whenever the idea of elected prosecutors or judges comes up, I would also get rid of PCC’s and Mayors having responsibility for running the police.
2 Likes
For me, the current system doesn’t work because judges are completely unaccountable for their out of touch decisions and sentencing. As a defender of democracy, my preferred solution is to make them accountable by election. Alternatively, we could go all the way in and give the power to convict and sentence to the police (on the basis that they have to deal with the scum and so they won’t be overly lenient with sentencing).
Either would be better than the status quo.
We have three layers of appeal system above the decision makers? Four if it’s District Judges in the Mags! Judges are accountable to the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, even the European Court in the right circumstances.
Meanwhile, electing judges doesn’t create justice, it creates a form of mob rule, the public are the worst decision makers in justice terms. They all want leniency for themselves, but ever harsher sentences for everyone else.
6 Likes
‘Accountability’ to other judges and foreign courts, rather than to a sovereign parliament or the people, doesn’t cut it.
Then there’s also the right of parliament to petition the King to remove a judicial office holder which is a simple majority vote in each house. (Or the sovereign parliament could pass legislation removing a JOH)
Too many successful appeals means you’ll struggle to get promoted so even if a judge doesn’t like the law they’ll apply it to protect their career.
Then there’s the accountability they face at the hands of certain newspapers who like to totally misrepresent decisions and who send reporters to doorstep judges, including when they are on the school run with their primary aged kids. Despite that they still apply the law as it stands.
Mistakes happen, people have a bad day, sometimes illogical decisions are made, but generally the decisions criticised in the press are simply applying the law. Parliament can change that law whenever they want and the judiciary will then make their decisions accordingly.
As with every system there are some poor appointments made.
Sometimes the criticism levied at the judiciary is warranted. I know some judges who think all criticism should be banned, but that’s ridiculous. Accountability is good, but it needs to be good faith accountability
Our current process is certainly far from perfect, but having done an exchange to the States I was horrified by how political every decision made was, often outright ignoring the law because their voter base/donors didn’t agree with it.
4 Likes
It really, really does. And at the end of the day, if the law is wrong, Parliament can change it. We already have one of the few systems where the judiciary cannot strike down legislation that fails to comply with other Acts, all the Courts can do is declare it incompatible and hope Parliament changes its mind and resolves the issue.
Judicial elections are a BAD idea, because the public doesn’t want true justice. it wants ever harsher sentences, and we got those once, with IPPs, and they are an absolute travesty.
The real problem is that most people think the Criminal Justice System is a problem for someone else, because they think they’re ‘good’ people.
Then they get to meet me when reality comes crashing home. When their teenage son is on a rape charge for a drunken one night stand. When their elderly mothers are up for death by careless driving because their reaction times aren’t what they once were, or when their mad aunts are in custody for telling “their truth” on Twitter.
Then they want justice, then they want soft sentences, then they want speedy resolutions, and most of the time, they won’t get it.
5 Likes
Doesn’t matter who does the sentencing, they would still be bound be the sentencing guidelines. Judges don’t just make it up as they go along, there needs to be consistency. I reguarly dish out conditional cautions, I decide the conditions including fines and compensation, that doesn’t mean I can whack a £500 fine on a common assault.
As with a lot of complicated matters the public doesn’t know what it wants, well certainly not the detail.
What’s next do we start electing Generals because we don’t like the way Operations are being conducted?
3 Likes
Let’s cut to the chase and elect the police officers?
1 Like
Better than marking your own homework. Accountable to SMEs and independent organisations.
UK parliament got rid of the death penalty when only 35% of the electorate was for abolition. Probably the best decision it has made since the war.
3 Likes
That’s what PCC’s has done, they choose the Chief Constable and set the Strategic direction. They might not have day to day control but if the Chief wants to be in post in 2 years time they will do as they are told based on the political whims of the local electorate.
Nah, I mean at the entry. Parish hustings, get them to tell us how they plan to enforce the Law.
Would be hilarious, half the country would be Gene Hunt and the other half would be Dixon of Dock Green
1 Like
Nah, bring in capital punishment for schools - nope, I don’t mean corporal punishment! 
And the splinter groups have started. They’ve got one called “Yvette Cooper” (which is quite funny), and have spray painted some lorries from Time Logistics who apparently transport weapons for Israeli weapons firms. They’ve posted on Twitter and said “if you want to ban Palestine Action, you have to proscribe Yvette Cooper too”.
Ah but will Yvette Cooper go akd attack military installations, or will the message have gotten across? I don’t think the intent or expectation was that direct action would end, but that a big red line would be drawn.
Where it will get interesting is are they going to start doing phone work on people doing pro-Palestine direct action to then prosecute them for secretly still being members of a proscribed organisation?