4 ms·

Also in the pipeline: elimination of jury trials https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2x01yne13o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2x01yne13o

• infotainment 6mo ago
  > The proposals, which return to Parliament on Tuesday, would replace juries in England and Wales with a single judge in cases where a convicted defendant would be jailed for up to three years. Wow, this is literally the plot of the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney video games. I'm sure it will go great with no downsides.
  • YawningAngel 6mo ago
    I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand, people are bad epistemologists and lots of countries manage with similarly limited jury trials. On the other, we're doing it for cost reasons, which I think is the worst basis imaginable for such a move
• derriz 6mo ago
  It's simply a fact that common law jury trials are time-consuming and expensive and cause long delays and bottlenecks in the justice system. Different common-law countries have addressed this issue in various ways. Restricting jury trials for more serious offenses (in this case for more serious charges - ones that could potentially result in a sentence of more than 3 years) is one way than many common law jurisdictions have taken. It's not ideal but it's infinitely better in my mind than the practice used in the US to reduce jury trials. To avoid the cost/expense of a jury trial, public prosecutors threatens to press for a large number of charges or some very serious charges - carrying the potential of very long sentences - a sort of Gish-gallop approach. Even if the chances of successful prosecution is relatively small for any one of the charges, the defendant is forced to take a plea-deal to avoid the risk of spending years or decades behind bars. Thus the defendant ends up with a guilty record and often a custodial sentence without any access to a trial or the chance to present their case at all.
  • u1hcw9nx 6mo ago
    American Bar Associaton agrees. ABA Plea Bargain Task Force Report is sad read. US criminal justice system is horrific and plea bargaining is big reason for it.
    • hunterpayne 6mo ago
      So you are telling me that the people who make money from criminal trials don't like the part of the system that would make a trial not necessary. Weird huh...its almost like they have a significant monetary reason to get rid of plea bargins.
      • u1hcw9nx 6mo ago
        Prosecutors are also members of the Bar and they don't make extra. Is it so hard to understand that people don't like to work for a system where people are treated inhumanely and can't get justice?
  • tomatocracy 6mo ago
    The thing is, the reason for the delays and inefficiencies is not really juries. It's mostly much more mundane things like the prison service not sending defendants to court at the right time, translators not turning up when they are supposed to, buildings which are falling apart, technology not working properly, and court time being double-booked. It's an administrative failure, not a problem with the system. Alongside removing the right to trial by jury, perhaps more alarmingly the government are also planning to remove appeal rights from "minor" cases (from magistrates to the Crown Court). The current statistics are that more than 40% of those appeals are upheld. The planned changes won't fix any of these things, but it will cause fundamental damage to trust in the system and result in many miscarriages of justice.
    • glaucon 6mo ago
      The plan is not to "remove trial by jury" but to "remove trial by jury for some types of offense".
• skajbz 6mo ago
  [flagged]
• nxm 6mo ago
  What a horrible idea - your fate should never be decided by a single individual.
  • themafia 6mo ago
    In the US it's just called a "bench trial." You can ask for one. It's often advantageous to do so.
• glaucon 6mo ago
  The first sentence of the cited article makes clear the matter at hand is not "elimination of jury trials" but "a plan to abolish some jury trials". The proposal is an attempt to reduce the time which those who are accused must wait for trial. FWIW the majority of all criminal cases in the UK are dealt with by either a single judge, or three judges[1]. This is hardly surprising as assembling a jury is vastly time consuming and for minor criminal matters is hard to justify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence#United_Kingdom
  • cryptonector 6mo ago
    Any charge that can be punished with imprisonment should require a jury trial.
    • penguin_booze 6mo ago
      Jury trials are a colossal and disproportionate waste of time. Jury trials have it place, but most of the time is spent on jury selection, theatrics, and deliberation--all this cost dearly, both in terms of time and money. Thanks to its high cost and unpredictability, laughable inventions like "plea bargains" exist, only to selectively prey on the vulnerable. It's not perfect (nor are jury trials), but when it comes to truth discovery and arriving at a proportionate sentence, as long as all parties are fairly represented, one without jury trials should be just as effective.
      • AndrewDucker 6mo ago
        UK trials don't spend lots of time on jury selection. And there's rarely days of deliberation. Not everything is done in US style.
• cryptonector 6mo ago
  RIP, Magna Carta.