Calls to remove juries from criminal trials, "evidence too complicated".

Read

JURI ES should be dumped from criminal trials as forensic and medical evidence gets more complicated and reluctance to serve grows, one of New South Wales' highest-ranking judges believes.

Yes of course the excuse is cost and time, because of course freedom and your right to a fair and legal trial comes at a high price.
This is disgusting news and would not suprise me if it becomes reality soon enough, its just part of the removal of our rights bit by bit.

The legal system is not good, but juries are the last chance some innocent people have in an unjust system.

How about having minimal iq/knowledge standards for being on a jury. Not gonna lie there are a ton of dumba$$ people in this world .

Originally posted by Fitch303
How about having minimal iq/knowledge standards for being on a jury. Not gonna lie there are a ton of dumba$$ people in this world .

edit on 13-12-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)

Yeah there could be a better selection process for sure, but removing the jury all together has left me dumbfounded. Why is it I always expect people to care but people always just bend over and let themselves get spanked.

reply to post by Fitch303


The point of a Jury is to be judged by COMMON PEOPLE. Not specific people, or no people, or only smart people. No, it's supposed to be a broad mix of your community. If the evidence is to "complicated" to understand, perhaps they shouldn't use it. Just because a Jury doesn't side with prosecutors, regardless of what the evidence is or says, does not mean the Jury is wrong. The Jury is always right, because they represent the wills of the people, the Prosecutor represents the will of the Government.

At least those in the system are starting to admit what Ive been saying all along, a jury of your peers is a worthless measure of justice since your peers are insane idiots.

reply to post by Rockpuck

The legal system has become a complicated system of mumbo jumbo and confusion that works primarley to discriminate on a socio economic level. If you can afford a million dollars for a lawyer you can get off with anything, but if your just an average person you wont even know how to say hello in the legal lingo.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
At least those in the system are starting to admit what Ive been saying all along, a jury of your peers is a worthless measure of justice since your peers are insane idiots.

Right and you would prefer the decision of one single insane person?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Fitch303

 

The point of a Jury is to be judged by COMMON PEOPLE. Not specific people, or no people, or only smart people. No, it's supposed to be a broad mix of your community. If the evidence is to "complicated" to understand, perhaps they shouldn't use it. Just because a Jury doesn't side with prosecutors, regardless of what the evidence is or says, does not mean the Jury is wrong. The Jury is always right, because they represent the wills of the people, the Prosecutor represents the will of the Government.

Beautifully said! Court de Jur; the only real court is a court based on Common Law.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Fitch303

 

The point of a Jury is to be judged by COMMON PEOPLE. Not specific people, or no people, or only smart people. No, it's supposed to be a broad mix of your community. If the evidence is to "complicated" to understand, perhaps they shouldn't use it. Just because a Jury doesn't side with prosecutors, regardless of what the evidence is or says, does not mean the Jury is wrong. The Jury is always right, because they represent the wills of the people, the Prosecutor represents the will of the Government.

Beautifully said! Court de Jur; the only real court is a court based on Common Law.

I fully agree and as you said, well said! But since common law is based on the population and much of the population believes or knows that our mis"representatives" are in fact self-serving criminals, liars and treasonous scum, shouldn't we all get on with it and provide them with a little common law justice? That would seem to be the uncommon common sense thing to do wouldn't it? Of course doing that might all be a set up anyway and part of the BIG plan. Who knows...

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by ThrowCatsAtCacti

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
At least those in the system are starting to admit what Ive been saying all along, a jury of your peers is a worthless measure of justice since your peers are insane idiots.

Right and you would prefer the decision of one single insane person?

I'd prefer the decision not rest on any man or men nor any device of man.

I seen this and thought...'geez, America really is going to the dogs isn't it?'

Then I seen New South Wales mentioned in the OP..I live in Victoria but this is still my own backyard essentially!

This is scary stuff!

reply to post by ThrowCatsAtCacti


I dont think juries or the evidence are the problem. To me, we seem to have moved from the concept of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" into the realm of "the truth, the half truth, and whatever helps my client out".

More complete facts - less grand standing by the lawyers.