Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

V854 - Criminal Law (Court Procedure) Bill (Second Reading) watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    43.48%
    On the contrary, No
    32.61%
    Abstain
    23.91%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The bolded is a change which would be made in the proposed system. At the moment, juries have the law explained to them and are asked to make a conclusion as to guilt based on the law as explained. This leads to situations where juries misunderstand, mishear, or, shockingly, even willfully ignore the guidance on the law set out by the judge (due to the private nature of jury deliberation one cannot be certain about the true extent of this but plenty of anecdotal evidence is available) - this is the mischief which this Bill seeks to cure.

    The jury's competence to find facts is not limited by this Bill; nor is the judge's extended. All this does is take the responsibility for interpreting and understanding the law out of the hands of laymen and into those of qualified professionals.
    um... no
    My explanation is the existing system.
    The jury has only to decide in favour of one party, guilty or not guilty. if they don't understand what's going on, I would question the ability of the judge/lawyers.
    I can understand your argument, but the bill doesn't help, or make any difference, other than letting the judge both decide guilt and pass sentence.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    um... no
    My explanation is the existing system.
    The jury has only to decide in favour of one party, guilty or not guilty. if they don't understand what's going on, I would question the ability of the judge/lawyers.
    I can understand your argument, but the bill doesn't help, or make any difference, other than letting the judge both decide guilt and pass sentence.
    The jury has to decide in favour of one party. By only pronouncing a guilty or not guilty verdict, and not being required to give reasons, there is no way of confirming that they are in fact applying the law of the United Kingdom and not some kind of mutual sense of 'justice' they happened upon. The judge does not apply the law at the moment, the jury does; only the proposed changes mean that the judge would be the one to apply the law. It is very important that juries are required to stick to the law, and by leaving interpretation of the law, as opposed to just the facts, in their hands, this cannot be realistically achieved. The judge is still not deciding guilt - he is being told what the facts are, and interpreting them through the scope of the law to see whether they are consistent with guilt.

    Edit: Also, from the policy explanation on the first page: "Juries are notoriously bad at understanding the law (https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads...r-research.pdf p35-7)"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The jury has to decide in favour of one party. By only pronouncing a guilty or not guilty verdict, and not being required to give reasons, there is no way of confirming that they are in fact applying the law of the United Kingdom and not some kind of mutual sense of 'justice' they happened upon. The judge does not apply the law at the moment, the jury does; only the proposed changes mean that the judge would be the one to apply the law. It is very important that juries are required to stick to the law, and by leaving interpretation of the law, as opposed to just the facts, in their hands, this cannot be realistically achieved. The judge is still not deciding guilt - he is being told what the facts are, and interpreting them through the scope of the law to see whether they are consistent with guilt.

    Edit: Also, from the policy explanation on the first page: "Juries are notoriously bad at understanding the law (https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads...r-research.pdf p35-7)"
    so true.
    I still disagree with this bill, but you do a have a point.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Ayes to the right: 20
    Noes to the left: 15
    Abstain: 11

    The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it. Unlock.

    Turnout: 92%
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 12, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.