We can successfully prosecute and punish – we just have to have sufficient evidence to persuade a jury of 12 ordinary men and women.
It’s called the law. Or perhaps that’s another freedom requiring modification in the face of those who oppose our fundamental values.
22 responses so far ↓
1 Former Tory // Sep 11, 2008 at 10:10 am
Sometimes it doesn’t work too well, unfortunately:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
It’s enough to give juries a bad name, when they start answering questions they weren’t even asked instead of the ones they were.
2 JuliaM // Sep 11, 2008 at 10:13 am
One of the hazards of jury trials, unfortunately…
Doesn’t mean it’s wrong to have them. Might mean the law needs to be tightened up in this particular case though.
3 tired and emotional // Sep 11, 2008 at 10:24 am
Reading the whole of Alice Miles’ piece I can’t escape the feeling that she would rather these people hadn’t been prosecuted at all, that she fundamentally doubts that there was any plot or thinks that MI5 cooked it up and that she doesn’t believe that Islamic supremacism is actively exploiting our freedoms in order to destroy them. She is terribly and dangerously wrong on all counts, in my view.
This is the woman who said that she would not want Britain to retaliate with nuclear weapons if we were attacked by them.
Taken in the round there is nothing spot on about her extreme left-liberalism Tim.
4 marksany // Sep 11, 2008 at 10:29 am
I was a juror on an attempted murder trial, and it was scary. Most jurors did not take the task seriously and had no idea about how the law worked. The all white jurors were happy to be openly racist in the jury room. Intellectually, most failed to understand the charges, the procedures and what was asked of them. Some were just vehemently anti-police and wanted to let the guy go whatever the evidence said.
I took the role of foreman and spent a long time talking round each juror in turn to agree the correct verdict that was clearly signalled by the judge and both barristers. If I hadn’t been there, it could have gone either way; might as well have thrown a dice instead.
There must be a better system.
5 ukliberty // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:27 am
marksany, no disrespect intended but your experience is of one jury out of how many?
I think Alice Miles is making an excellent point: we should not allow trial by media, trial by politician, or trial by police. This is they key point:
6 Bill W // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I was on the jury for a murder trail, some years ago, and my experience was quite different. The jury seemed to be engaged and everybody seemed to grasp the important parts of the case and how the law applied to them. If anybody was confused or uninterested they kept quiet about it. Perhaps it would have been different if there had been a racial element to the case.
I don’t recall any signaling for a verdict from the court. The defense argued for acquittal , the prosecutor for conviction, and the judge carefully explained the relevant law.
7 ukliberty // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm
The nature of our legal system means that we can’t know for sure about jury competence, but this article on the collapse of the Jubilee line fraud trial may be of interest:
8 Tim Newman // Sep 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm
There must be a better system.
A jury consists of 12 people too stuipid to get out of it.
9 Kay Tie // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“There must be a better system.”
Yes, in just the same way that democracy is flawed (I dare you to listen to callers to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 without shouting “you shouldn’t be allowed to vote!”).
I can’t think of a better system that doesn’t end up with unchecked self-interest dominating. To see what I mean, just look at what is happening in the child courts when professionals are left to do what they like without scrutiny.
10 john b // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“Islamic supremacism is actively exploiting our freedoms in order to destroy them.”
So we have to destroy them first? Haha, take *that*, Islamic supremacists!
“A jury consists of 12 people too stuipid to get out of it.”
Not sure about that. Unless you’re self-employed, in which case fair play, why on earth would you try to get out of it?
11 Mr Potarto // Sep 11, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“just look at what is happening in the child courts…”
I can’t, they won’t let me. Which is your point, of course.
12 JuliaM // Sep 11, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“I dare you to listen to callers to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 without shouting “you shouldn’t be allowed to vote!””
Oooh, I do that. A lot.
And given that I listen on a portable radio in my office, I don’t half get some odd looks…
13 Kay Tie // Sep 11, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“Oooh, I do that. A lot.”
In which case you must have been ready to go postal on the dippy woman who rang in yesterday to say that paedophiles will dress up as penguins in public parks in order to get close to children.
14 john b // Sep 11, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I suppose they might be paedophile furries…
15 JuliaM // Sep 11, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“In which case you must have been ready to go postal on the dippy woman who rang in yesterday to say that paedophiles will dress up as penguins in public parks in order to get close to children.”
People were worried, I’ll admit to that
“I suppose they might be paedophile furries…”
Nothing’s too depraved for furries…
16 jameshigham // Sep 11, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Win-win situation for them.
17 Brit_in_Aussie // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:08 am
“Doesn’t mean it’s wrong to have them. Might mean the law needs to be tightened up in this particular case though.”
That’s right. Don’t get the result you want? Change the law.
And if you really want to justify the unjustiable because you know better, go for the weasel excuse: “We’re rebalancing the system in favour of the victims”
Back to the point: the jury’s decision was perverse. A good reason to appeal.
18 john cramer // Sep 12, 2008 at 2:18 am
If juries are so good why have lawyers as defence and prosecution. Surely the jury could ask the questions.
19 JuliaM // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:48 am
“That’s right. Don’t get the result you want? Change the law.”
The law isn’t immutable, you know. It can, and must, change with the times. Note that no taxi drivers have been prosecuted recently for not carrying a bale of hay for their horse…
“Back to the point: the jury’s decision was perverse.”
According to whom? You?
20 Brit_in_Aussie // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Yes, according to me. But unlike armchair fascists like you, I don’t advocate changing laws on rules of evidence until I get the result I want.
There is an appeals procedure in the UK as in most countries. If the decision was perverse (and I think it was) then that’s what the plaintiffs should do.
There is a difference. I believe that legal systems should have checks and balances to prevent the powerful from skirting the law.
You clearly don’t.
21 JuliaM // Sep 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm
You do realise Gordon Brown doesn’t just whip out his fountain pen and scribble out a new law, don’t you…?
It has to go through the parliamentary process. That’s the ‘checks and balances’…
22 diogenes1960 // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:59 pm
So, Brit_in_Aussie, without having heard the evidence you think the verdict was perverse. If there was not sufficient evidence of a plot – leaving aside whether these guys could first, actually have constructed a workable bomb, and second, got it to explode when and where they wanted – then you will probably need to change the law in order to get them behind bars.
Leave a Comment