Close Menu
    Regno Unito

    I parlamentari laburisti si ribellano contro la “follia” dei piani di demolizione della giuria

    Share.
    View 11 Comments

    11 commenti

    1. Aliktren on

      good, this seems a step to far, it seems if you have trial by Jury then thats a right you should keep for all.

    2. wkavinsky on

      It is the job of MP’s to keep the cabinet and ministers accountable to the population, and I’ve yet to meet anyone in my pretty left-leaning friendship group who things this is a *good* thing, so their just doing what we pay them for in my book.

    3. RoughVirtual1626 on

      I voted labour. But regardless of what side of the fence you are on on such matters it is clear that the party do not have the internal cohesion to form a workable government. The executive currently has no ability to implement government policy and in some cases relying on the opposition to back legislation due to their own parties infighting. Labour really need to pull themselves together.

    4. ACompletelyLostCause on

      Scrapping just trials for sentences under 3 years seems excessive. It’s also a typical labour “tone deaf” announcement, almost designed to self sabotage.

      I can understand expanding the role of magistrates and maybe looking to expand the time period they can sentence people to could be viable, but 3 years is far too much.

    5. Humacti on

      If anything, we need specialist juries for certain things like financial crime, or medical malpractice.

    6. Visual_Astronaut1506 on

      Short sighted and does a disservice to victims of crime, there is no other workable policy to reduce the backlog.

      Some serious crimes aren’t getting court dates until 2031. Are people aware of this?

      What do people think is more damaging to society? An adjusted (but still law abiding and functional, with rights to appeal) trial system or letting criminals go unpunished?

      Ideological purists getting in the way of fixing problems. It’s basically just a moderate expansion of magistrate courts and people are acting like it’s a horrible aberration. I bet half the people opposing this didn’t even know that magistrate trials already didn’t have juries.

      At what threshold would opponents want something to be done? 10 year backlog, 20?

      Remember the backlog is also denying the accused the opportunity to plead their innocence, they are being denied justice and having the accusations hang over them until their trial date as well.

    7. digsy on

      I’m yet to make up my mind on whether or not this is a good thing. I do understand however that this will be effective in reducing the backlog as a lot of defendants will now likely be advised by their legal counsel to plead rather than go before a judge.

    8. Dystopian_Everyday on

      The average person isn’t intelligent enough for the asks of a jury. I wish they were because it’s a good way to ensure that laws reflect the populations wishes but let’s be honest, would you leave your fate in the hands of 12 strangers?

    9. RockTheBloat on

      I think I’m the only person in the UK who thinks it’s a good idea for cases with shorter maximum sentences, as long as there are robust opportunities for appeals.

    10. AI-Slop-Bot on

      The litmus test for me is “what if Trump did it”. If it’s authoritarian under that test then maybe it isn’t such a good idea.

      What if Trump sentenced people to years in prison for expressing unpleasant opinions on social media?

      What if Trump denied people the opportunity of a Jury Trial?

    11. homeinthecity on

      It’s hard to see the argument for removing jury trials when courtrooms sit empty. Surely the answer is an adequately funded system of justice?

    Leave A Reply