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

Watch this thread
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-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.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
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.
6
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Dandaman1)
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.
Some of the comments are also scary putting a innocent man in jail for a crime where they are likely to be abused is seen as only a "minor inconvenience"
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Why not skip trials altogether and put people in jail instantly.
1
reply
username2228735
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
"appoint a specially trained judge" - a feminist basically.
1
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
You'll get much better decisions without juries. Should get rid of them altogether.

All the reasons the Guardian commentator gives for wanting to get rid of juries in rape trials are good reasons for getting rid of juries full stop.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by joecphillips)
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-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.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Trinculo)
A jury trial isn't a basic human right. Most criminal trials don't involve a jury. Most crimes are tried by magistrates.
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.
1
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Dandaman1)
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.
This was addressed in the comments section as well. When you look at cases that go to court, the conviction rate is about the same as other serious crimes (somewhere around 50% I believe).

Maybe, if people stopped spreading this stupid 6% figure around and actually used the much higher figure for conviction rate once a case has gone to court, more rape victims would actually come forward to report it. People often don't bother because they think there's little chance of anything being done.

So these feminists talking about a "6% conviction rate" are not just twisting the truth, they're actually making the problem worse (and then suggesting stupid things to deal with the problem that they're making worse, like effectively scrapping the right to a fair trial.).
1
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Typical Guardian trash, why is this news?
0
reply
username1022139
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
The Guardian Opinion Section is one of the most toxic places on the internet.

As one of the poster's above said, the comments to these sorts of articles by the Guardian readership show there's a disharmony between their content and their readers.

Never take anything for the Opinion Section too seriously.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by joecphillips)
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.
0
reply
niteninja1
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 150
Size:  103.5 KB
1
reply
Dodgypirate
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
#PussyGeneration --- Clint Eastwood.


Sargon of Akkad did a good review on this on YouTube.
0
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Trinculo)
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.
Personally I think we should definitely have some sort of IQ test or something.Most people are fairly stupid.Think of how stupid the average person is then realise half of them are stupider than that.A jury of your peers sounds ok on first glance but its really not.We should have people who know stuff about Dna and probability in jurys not the general public.And eye witness testimony seems to be given too much weight as well.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you done work experience at school/college?

Yes (154)
42.08%
Not yet, but I will soon (66)
18.03%
No (146)
39.89%

Watched Threads

View All