I processi della giuria devono essere limitati per salvare il sistema di giustizia penale dal crollo, indagine.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/09/jury-trials-must-be-limited-to-save-criminal-justice-system-from-collapse-inquiry-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
di AdaptableBeef
5 commenti
Yes only 1 side should prosecute and the other side does not defend and saves half the money and the legal system is safe from collapsing due to justice getting in the way
Scotland floated the idea of having the option of judge only for some sexual offences. The great difficulty is that when it is optional, no one signs up because it’s worse for defendants.
we don’t have enough prision spaces so i don’t know what speeding up trials is going to achieve. only thng we want going down that route is corproate tax abuse. a jury of 3 people who know finance.
Better solution:
Streamline the jury process. Video all trials. Any parts of the trial that a judge decides are procedural or inadmissible get removed from the video. Loads of pretrial meetings eliminated because they can just be clipped from the video.
Video is then shown to a juror in a private booth, and that juror gives a verdict. No discussion allowed – each juror decides independently. Jurors can watch anytime that suits them – evenings, weekends, whatever. Dramatically lowers burden on jurors. Need more throughput? – just buy more screens and seats!
Keep showing it to more jurors till there is a majority-12 decision. Ie. 2 not-guilty and 14 guity is enough to convict.
Process is far fairer since one vocal juror can no longer sway the entire jury – it more fairly represents the whole population.
Court then issues sentence.
For simple incidents a judge panel of suitably legally trained people would be more than sufficient.
It’s ridiculous that in the face of clear evidence people take a chance on a jury trial knowing its beneficial to their odds.