Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Jurors who cannot read English are being invited  to decide the outcome of criminal trials.

Inability to understand the written language is no bar to serving on a jury, officials said.

Even those who cannot easily understand the spoken word could be asked to sit in judgment on those accused of crime.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380538/Cant-read-write-English-You-serve-jury-new-rules.html

 

[fudgee]

I've expressed my views on Ken Clarke on this forum before when he announced that a lot of Heroin dealers would not be sent to prison

The man is so out of touch with reality and with the wishes and requirements of the British public that it really is scary.

He is a stupid gormless outdated draconion old goat!!

For the sake of our justice system and for the sake of the victims of crime, this man needs to be taken to the nearest veterinary clinic and put to sleep.

What an absolute Tit!! :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/

[Banjax]

‘If a juror attends court and there is a doubt about their capacity to act effectively due to insufficient understanding of English, the matter will be brought to the attention of the trial judge who could excuse them. In more complex cases, such as fraud cases, where jurors may be expected to read documents as part of the evidence, an assessment of whether the juror can serve on that trial will be made at court with judicial input.’

so, yet another Daily Fail scaremongering headline with utterly no real world application then 

[Dishevelled Den]

‘If a juror attends court and there is a doubt about their capacity to act effectively due to insufficient understanding of English, the matter will be brought to the attention of the trial judge who could excuse them. In more complex cases, such as fraud cases, where jurors may be expected to read documents as part of the evidence, an assessment of whether the juror can serve on that trial will be made at court with judicial input.’

so, yet another Daily Fail scaremongering headline with utterly no real world application then 

There's more than one way of reading a story like this one BJ and I would certainly agree that the Mail isn't always reticent to apply the full weight of their prose onto any particular subject.

I see this in a slightly different light however, in that it suggests to me that standards are now being allowed to slip in how people are expected to have the capacity to discharge their civic duties with fairness and having the full ability to adjudicate any matter by understanding all the facts surrounding it.

It is also a tacit admission that there are an increasing number of people for whom English is not their first language (with all that it implies).

I see this as a dangerous situation; for although many of those people - who are the potential subjects of this story - may be able to understand a rudimentary level of spoken English, the fact that it is not their first language suggests that many may not have a full grasp of the spoken word in an environment where the nuances of language are of the utmost importance.

To me it’s dumbing down, pandering to the most convenient common denominator and seeking an easy way to deal with matters which require more trouble to be taken with them than the legislature now considers them to be worthy of.

[Banjax]

i sat on a jury in an attempted murder case many many years ago, i was taking notes, listening intently, trying hard to follow the ins and outs..............i was the only one, everyone else was either not interested or in the case of one university lecturer, determined to wrap it all up because she had work to do - i was utterly shocked - "i trust you dont teach law then?" i asked.

one juror came in late and so drunk that the court was adjourned for 4 hrs while he was fed coffee

2 women went with the prosecution as the young lawyer "was lovely"

if i'm ever convicted of anything i dont want a jury - theyre all idiots, except me of course 





anyway z, what if you're deaf, or blind, or cant speak the language? i reckon you'd be more likely to follow the trial closely if you were given transcripts to read - and hence, ironically, make a better judgement 

[Dishevelled Den]

i sat on a jury in an attempted murder case many many years ago, i was taking notes, listening intently, trying hard to follow the ins and outs..............i was the only one, everyone else was either not interested or in the case of one university lecturer, determined to wrap it all up because she had work to do - i was utterly shocked - "i trust you dont teach law then?" i asked.

one juror came in late and so drunk that the court was adjourned for 4 hrs while he was fed coffee

2 women went with the prosecution as the young lawyer "was lovely"

if i'm ever convicted of anything i dont want a jury - theyre all idiots, except me of course 





anyway z, what if you're deaf, or blind, or cant speak the language? i reckon you'd be more likely to follow the trial closely if you were given transcripts to read - and hence, ironically, make a better judgement 

I don't doubt that at all BJ, when I was dealing with political crime the trials were conducted under the Diplock (1) system where no jury was present - just the Judge, so it was a surprise to me when I attended some hearings for lesser offences, where juries were still being used, to find the standard of juror to be questionable to say the least.

Insofar as your final comments are concerned, is it reasonable for someone who cannot hear, cannot read or understand the language being used to conduct the hearing, or see those involved in it, to be expected to give an adjudication based on their understanding of the all facts presented during the course of it?

In any case, attempting to understand a series of circumstances to a point of conclusion, by using the written word alone (as in reading transcripts), seldom provides the means necessary to fully assess those who are being accused of wrongdoing and who are having the evidence against them tried in an open forum, where the appearance and demeanour of those accused is every bit as important to the proceedings as the written evidence that’s being presented against them.


(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts

[tidla]

i sat on a jury in an attempted murder case many many years ago, i was taking notes, listening intently, trying hard to follow the ins and outs..............i was the only one, everyone else was either not interested or in the case of one university lecturer, determined to wrap it all up because she had work to do - i was utterly shocked - "i trust you dont teach law then?" i asked.

one juror came in late and so drunk that the court was adjourned for 4 hrs while he was fed coffee

2 women went with the prosecution as the young lawyer "was lovely"

if i'm ever convicted of anything i dont want a jury - theyre all idiots, except me of course 





anyway z, what if you're deaf, or blind, or cant speak the language? i reckon you'd be more likely to follow the trial closely if you were given transcripts to read - and hence, ironically, make a better judgement 

I don't doubt that at all BJ, when I was dealing with political crime the trials were conducted under the Diplock (1) system where no jury was present - just the Judge, so it was a surprise to me when I attended some hearings for lesser offences, where juries were still being used, to find the standard of juror to be questionable to say the least.

Insofar as your final comments are concerned, is it reasonable for someone who cannot hear, cannot read or understand the language being used to conduct the hearing, or see those involved in it, to be expected to give an adjudication based on their understanding of the all facts presented during the course of it?

In any case, attempting to understand a series of circumstances to a point of conclusion, by using the written word alone (as in reading transcripts), seldom provides the means necessary to fully assess those who are being accused of wrongdoing and who are having the evidence against them tried in an open forum, where the appearance and demeanour of those accused is every bit as important to the proceedings as the written evidence that’s being presented against them.


(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts

i remember my one and only jury service to date.

the familiarity of the process to which the accused seemed quite accustomed, led most to vote guilty.

always a relief when the judge reels off other cases /decisions which the scumbag has hanging over him.