Here is the latest case of a feminist wanting to abandon the right to a fair trial

As I often find, the comments under the article help restore some of my faith in The Guardian's readership.

Nevertheless, this opinion piece is simply trash. We may as well just remove the inconvenience of trials completely, eh?

And some of the stats she mentions are incredibly misleading. For example, the 6% attrition rate isn't necessarily due to any failure of the justice system. Most cases are dropped due to a lack of evidence, and not all accusations are necessarily correct in the first place.

The accused cannot be convicted without proof of guilt and without a jury of his or her peers. The jury is there to protect the accused from the state (and ideologues like this author, it seems). If there's no proof, and if no jury can be convinced, no conviction can occur. And that's not a problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/12/juries-no-place-rape-trials-victims-deserve-unprejudiced-justice-judge

It's only a basic human right but let's just take it from men and replace juries with people trained to think and rule how we want.

A jury trial isn't a basic human right. Most criminal trials don't involve a jury. Most crimes are tried by magistrates.

And some of the stats she mentions are incredibly misleading. For example, the 6% attrition rate isn't necessarily due to any failure of the justice system. Most cases are dropped due to a lack of evidence, and not all accusations are necessarily correct in the first place.

A fair trial is a human right and they don't want an impartial judge they want a 'specially trained judge' and when they are saying it is wrong to question rape victims accusations i wonder what they mean by specially trained and how this process would end up going.

We have an paradoxical jury system as it is - jurors are selected for their total ignorance of a subject. If a plane crashes, and there is a trial for some kind of homicide or corporate homicide, we check to see if anyone in the jury knows anything about aeroplanes or engineering - and then chuck them off the jury.

What we are essentially doing is looking to get the most clueless people possible, and those that are most susceptible to the arguments of the advocates rather than the strength of the evidence.

It works both ways.

Just yesterday, a father on trial for raping his daughter was aquitted after the judge instructed the jury to do so when it was found that the daughter had invented the whole story to teach him a lesson for being a strict parent.

Specialists are needed. The more experienced a judge is, the more cases they will have heard, and the more likely they will be to direct a case correctly.

What would you rather have - one judge hearing your case who does nothing except sexual offences all the time; or a jury full of people whom you have no control over - there could be several rampant feminazis on there - you wouldn't know.