Sign in to follow this  
Tongs ya bas

Well done the government: seriously

Recommended Posts

You can now do life if you kill somebody by dangerous driving or kill somebody whilst driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

now it's up to the judiciary 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

You can now do life if you kill somebody by dangerous driving or kill somebody whilst driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

now it's up to the judiciary 

really? bet theres lots of loop holes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

You can now do life if you kill somebody by dangerous driving or kill somebody whilst driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

now it's up to the judiciary 

This was already the case. The worst cases would already be charged as manslaughter or murder, both of which carry life sentences.

A thread here by The Secret Barrister

Here is one such example, where someone was sentenced to 22 years - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jerrell-elie-nathan-bell-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-after-crushing-teen-with-car-in-south-london-a3374861.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to be fair

I also strongly believe that crimes committed by drivers aren't punished nearly severely enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

This was already the case. The worst cases would already be charged as manslaughter or murder, both of which carry life sentences.

A thread here by The Secret Barrister

Here is one such example, where someone was sentenced to 22 years - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jerrell-elie-nathan-bell-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-after-crushing-teen-with-car-in-south-london-a3374861.html

 

 

The issue has never been the sentences - the issue is the excuses juries accept to clear people of even careless driving.

Dazzled by the sun but didn't slow down and so crushed someone under your wheels ... could happen to any of us, back on the road with you ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The issue has never been the sentences - the issue is the excuses juries accept to clear people of even careless driving.

Dazzled by the sun but didn't slow down and so crushed someone under your wheels ... could happen to any of us, back on the road with you ...

I've never been convinced by juries being the best option to be honest (though there are comparable flaws with magistrates IMO). I did A-Level law and some of the examples you hear of juries are ridiculous - my particular favourite is R v Young, where a man was convicted of murder after four of his jurors consulted a ouija board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/10/2017 at 3:57 PM, Saint 1 said:

I've never been convinced by juries being the best option to be honest (though there are comparable flaws with magistrates IMO). I did A-Level law and some of the examples you hear of juries are ridiculous - my particular favourite is R v Young, where a man was convicted of murder after four of his jurors consulted a ouija board. 

That can't be true, it is illegal for jurors to consult with others, alive or dead. :wink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Padge said:

That can't be true, it is illegal for jurors to consult with others, alive or dead. :wink:

That's the spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, Saint 1 said:

I've never been convinced by juries being the best option to be honest (though there are comparable flaws with magistrates IMO). I did A-Level law and some of the examples you hear of juries are ridiculous - my particular favourite is R v Young, where a man was convicted of murder after four of his jurors consulted a ouija board. 

After doing my stint of jury service I came away with little faith in throwing my future in the hands of 12 idiots dragged in off the street should I ever find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on a jury dealing with a death by dangerous driving case. I came away well impressed by how scrupulously fair the whole thing was, how much effort the police & prosecution put in to make a convincing case etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎16‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:57 PM, Saint 1 said:

I've never been convinced by juries being the best option to be honest (though there are comparable flaws with magistrates IMO). I did A-Level law and some of the examples you hear of juries are ridiculous - my particular favourite is R v Young, where a man was convicted of murder after four of his jurors consulted a ouija board. 

I dont think there's anything wrong with having an independent jury but I do think changes need to be made to the selection of jurors.

I understand they want a jury to represent a cross section of society to avoid bias but its just a fact that not everyone who gets called up has the intelligence or capacity to be able to listen to the evidence and make a reasoned judgement. I do feel that everyone who is called up must pass some form of assessment first to check they have the suitable skills.

There are also some highly complex cases where even generally intelligent people struggle. For cases like this there's a case for us to have a 'semi-professional jury' consisting of people who have received some legal training and have the additional skills to be able to disseminate the information. I know jurors are instructed to form their decision based purely on the evidence but its incredibly difficult not to get emotionally involved in some cases. Another area where some training would help those jurors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

I dont think there's anything wrong with having an independent jury but I do think changes need to be made to the selection of jurors.

I understand they want a jury to represent a cross section of society to avoid bias but its just a fact that not everyone who gets called up has the intelligence or capacity to be able to listen to the evidence and make a reasoned judgement. I do feel that everyone who is called up must pass some form of assessment first to check they have the suitable skills.

There are also some highly complex cases where even generally intelligent people struggle. For cases like this there's a case for us to have a 'semi-professional jury' consisting of people who have received some legal training and have the additional skills to be able to disseminate the information. I know jurors are instructed to form their decision based purely on the evidence but its incredibly difficult not to get emotionally involved in some cases. Another area where some training would help those jurors.

Part of the advantage of a jury system is that is does not work on pure logic and reflects the sensibility of th esociety it is in.  

I do accept your point though, even with the dangers of a sem-professional jury, who would be trained to see things in a  cerrtain light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 2:43 PM, graveyard johnny said:

really? bet theres lots of loop holes

And secret handshakes and friends with power and influence.

And congratulating a Tory government for being more punitive is well  ................... a bit like congratulating Mother Theresa for being  er nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the law permit judges to direct a jury to give a verdict? 

Isn't it up to the prosecution and the defence to explain the complexities of a case adequately?

Aren't cases reviewed?

And of course it is possible to appeal against sentence and verdict.

That is not to say that of course that there aren't miscarriages of justice, although that isn't necessarily the fault of the jury by a long chalk

Edited by Tongs ya bas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2017 at 10:38 PM, shrek said:

After doing my stint of jury service I came away with little faith in throwing my future in the hands of 12 idiots dragged in off the street should I ever find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time!

There was a chap on my jury stint who said “he’s obviously guilty, he wouldn’t have been arrested if he wasn’t” 

it took us hours to get him to even contemplate the evidence 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil said:

There was a chap on my jury stint who said “he’s obviously guilty, he wouldn’t have been arrested if he wasn’t” 

it took us hours to get him to even contemplate the evidence 

There was a film about that. It wasn't called  'twelve angry men', it was called 'one idiotic man'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil said:

“he’s obviously guilty, he wouldn’t have been arrested if he wasn’t” 

Leave voter was he?:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - Dec 2017

Rugby League Books On Sale Here

League Express - Every Monday