[Closed] ?"Joanne Fraill just checked into Her Majesty's Prison"

she is a victim of a sytem she clearly doesn't understand. What do expect if you put people that haven't got a clue in positions of responsibility? If it shows anything it's that the British justice system doesn't work.

The average jury:

[img] ?w=300&h=165[/img]

😉

Lets go then, c'mon Edukator, Crazy-legs et al. A detailed rundown of the vastly superior system of justice that you want to put in place that makes the current apparently archaic one redundant... lets be having you

[img] ?w=300&h=165[/img]

You forget of course that the person illustrated was something of an autodidact. I wouldn't mind him on a jury.

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

Wrong character, that picture is

"Churches...Gravy..."

This is better than the trial.
In fact, I think there is every grounds for a trial by STW option to be written into the scrolls of ye olde law.
All rise.
Judge TJ preciding.

I already have, berm bandit. I propose testing all potential jurors. If through the test they don't demonstrate understanding of the legal system and the values of society then they're out.

Edukator = Oxymoron ....discuss

snot the first time the irony of the screen name has been pointed out..

Edukator - Member

I already have, berm bandit. I propose testing all potential jurors. If through the test they don't demonstrate understanding of the legal system and the values of society then they're out

so no jury of your peers then selected by random lot?

Edit a basic cornerstone of British justice - the concept of reasonableness. Thats what the normal person thinks is reasonable - the proverbial man on the clapham omnibus. Now this is decided by a jury ultimately - but if the jury is no longer representative of the UK population but only an elite small % of it?

Mainly because most people aren't aware that "the Edukators" refers to the film "Die Fetten Jahre sind Vorbei" in which the "edukators" are anti-capitalist activiists fighting social injustice.

TJ, I'm convinced that the reason that juries go along so easily with the Crown Prosecution service and police is that they adopt the role of humble serfs providing the intimidating judge with the verdict he wants rather than seriously questionaing the validity of the prosecution's case. I think a jury made up of people confident in their role (having passed a test) would be more likely to stand up for their views and perhaps avoid miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham six.

"Die Fetten Jahre sind Vorbei" in which the "edukators" are anti-capitalist activiists fighting social injustice.

only til it starts seeming like hard work though hey.. 😉

If through the test they don't demonstrate understanding of the legal system and the values of society then they're out.

The driving test doesn't actually stop many people driving - how many people do you know who fail? But it does prevent them getting onto the road before they have the skills needed to drive safely. Why would a jury test be any different? Selection, a week's training, a test and then you get to be a juror for a couple of weeks.

Well that simply shows your ignorance. Juries often refuse to convict and give what seem like perverse verdicts. Often aquittals.

its not for the jury to question evidence - that's the defence lawyers job.

I think you are very confused about how British justice works - its adversarial and the jury decides between the defence and the prosecution. Unlike most European systems that are inquisitorial.

so - I suggest before you think about dismantling the basic cornerstones of British justice you need to actully find out a little about it.

Here is a few for you to look at Edukator

R v Ponting [1985]
R v Wilson (1996),
R v Blythe (1998)
R v Randle and Pottle (1991

Accusing others of ignorance, TJ, when you've never worked in the legal system and they have. Read back, there is absolutely nothing to imply I don't understand how the system works and plenty to show I do. How much do you know about other European legal systems? Enough to label them inquisitorial, I think not.

In a credentials war you'll lose and refering to me as ignorant and incapable of understanding the system the height of irony. Would you have me as a juror given my level of ignorance? Of course not. You'll be thankful to know that I haven't qualified for UK jury service for over 20 years.

Would you like me to cite European cases for you to read, TJ?

feel free to ignore this point again.

Done!

You do show your ignorance however. Go read up on those cases. all aquittals against the direction of the judge.

the intimidating judge with the verdict he wants rather than seriously questioning the validity of the prosecution's case.

~Shows your ignorance strongly. There is not often a verdict the judge wants. Sometimes a judge will direct on a point of law but juries will ignore this as in the cases I list. a Its not for the jury to question the prosecutions case. Thats the defence lawyers role.

As for your idea of testing for juries - thats removing a basic cornerstone of British justice.

~So no matter what qualifications you have you do show your ignorance and lack of understanding of UK law and court procedures

do yourself a favour - look up those case and learn something.

Edukator - Member

Would you like me to cite European cases for you to read, TJ?

And what relevance would that have to the role of the jury in a UK court?

I'm convinced that the reason that juries go along so easily with the Crown Prosecution service and police

Who says juries go along easily with the prosecution and the police?

How much do you know about other European legal systems? Enough to label them inquisitorial, I think not.

Judges aren't allowed to be jurors, Junkyard. They are very much a part of the system and jurors need to be able to challenge judges and the judical system and stop it in its tracks when they sense injustice.

Edukator - go read up on those cases.

Also on how UK courts work

You are asking the jury to take on the role of the defence lawyers 🙄

Congratulations konabunny on being able to spot the link there. Bermbandit: I put the 😉 in because the arguing on this thread and some of the comments just reminded me of that particular scene, not cos I believe the judicial system to be so fundamentally flawed that it requires a re-write.

You're the one that suddenly brought in a comparison with Europe, TJ. You posted four cases for me to read, I thought you might appreciate some reading matter too. Kona, I don't think TJ knows enough about European justice systems to label them inquisitorial. I know enough about one to consider it every bit as fair as the British one but less dependant on wealth and social status while being based on the presuption of innocence with the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt - far from inquisitional.

Ask the Birmingham six how easily jurors go along with the prosecution and the police, Kona. Ask those that were jailed for crimes they didn't commit by juries that never questioned trumped up charges.

I have no intention of being ordered around by soemone that calls me ignorant, TJ. Your use of the imperative does you no favours on this forum.

I don't think TJ knows enough about European justice systems to label them inquisitorial. I know enough about one to consider it every bit as fair as the British one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

You've brought up your "credentials" and your experience in numerous legal systems - in what capacity was that, then? Because if you're going to make absolute howlers like not knowing what an inquisitorial legal system is (and not have the wit to google it)...

perhaps avoid miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham six.

What utter tosh. The jury of the 6 convicted on the basis of the evidence that was placed before them. The issue was that the evidence was to say the least suspect, and this led to the royal commission on Criminal justice, and a new appeals process and methodolgy for reveiwing criminal cases, not to mention the disbanding of the seriously corrupt West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad who fitted the 6 up. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Jury system being in any way flawed. The original issue was in 1975 and the legal changes to rectify those miscarriages were on the statue book by 1997.

What all that has to do with this case 36 years later and 14 years after the legal system has been reveiwed and changed beats me. The issue is nothing to do with the womans ability to be a juror, she clearly had the wit to understand what she was doing was wrong. shes says as much herself.

To try to suggest that we change the jury system on this basis case is like suggesting that we put Drug dealers in charge of policing on the basis that they will have more empathy with the criminals.

Judges aren't allowed to be jurors

Yes they are, have a read of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

I'm asking the jury to doubt police statements just as they should doubt the word of the accused. A juror should give equal credibility to the prosecution and defence and I feel that too often that is not the case. The result is too frequent miscarriages of jutice. Jurors need to be well-informed, confident people capable of being a match for both the prosecution and defence lawyers.

DNA testing has allowed retrial and aquital of many prisoners tried and imprisoned by juries. Where data on the profile of the people freed exists the failings of peer justice become all too apparent. Check the colour of those convicted of rape in the US and the colour of the police officers that falsified evidence.

"You'll be thankful to know that I haven't qualified for UK jury service for over 20 years." There we have it Educator you are either a member of the royal family a criminal insane or have not lived in the country for 20 years . That latter may explain why your views on the jury system are so out of date.

Oh and France and Italy both have inquisitorial systems.

Jurors discuss the case in private and decide on the evidence presented to them in court by two relatively equally well equipped and trained Advocates . They are well informed by the Trial process the whole point of a trial in the adversarial system is that the jury do not make up evidence from their own knowledge and research. Hence the famous "and who are the Beatles " judicial quote. They do not have to stand up to anybody they decide in secret and their spokesperson then delivers a two word (at most ) verdict.

This case is not about someone so educationally subnormal she could not perform the task of Juror . It is about someone so morally bankrupt she chose not to. She did do her own research she did breach the confidentiality of the jury discussion and she communicated with a defendant .

You may object to the Jury system but one bad juror does not make your argument valid no matter how hard you try to mould the facts.

Edukator : Now if you were talking about half wits who troll on STW forum being barred from jury service you'd have my vote straight away 🙄

Thing is edukator - if you read up on those cases I posted you would realise that your basic premise is wrong. Juries do give common sense verdicts that are against the strict interpretation of the law.

you also are clearly ignorant on the various roles of the participants in a UK court.

The prosecution lawyer represents the crown, the defence lawyer obviously the defendant, the judge is impartial and represents the law, the Jury represents the public.

you are asking for a massive change in the way the UK law works to fix a flaw that you only think exists because of your lack of understanding of how the legal system in the UK works

so lets here some credentials then. You have claimed to be a teacher but were unable to substantiate it. Indeed actually you have since denied being a teacher. What is your experience of Uk law?

Mine is purely that of an interested layman in criminal law although I have done a university course in Civil law. However I have followed court cases and discussion because I am interested in civil liberties.

Edit - there was a recent criminal trial that collapsed because the police officers evidence was ruled unreliable by the judge! IIRC

DNA testing has allowed retrial and aquital of many prisoners tried and imprisoned by juries

Did they have the DNA evidence at the original trial?

You are no doubt right, Uplink. Going way back abattoir workers were not accepted, then there was a long list of people in the legal professions until they retired and I haven't looked at the 2003 act.

edukator.. you made a silly comment at the start of this thread and have spent the rest of it trying to dig yourself out by concocting some cock and bull ideology that you're making up as you go along..

give it a rest surely..?

I'm asking the jury to doubt police statements just as they should doubt the word of the accused. A juror should give equal credibility to the prosecution and defence and I feel that too often that is not the case.

why..?
And how would it be fairer to be judged by better educated people..? What makes a cleverer person more just..?

The only people I've ever met to have done jury service are at best pot-smoking hippies and at worst sympathetic to the criminal underclass..

peers if you like..

Which brings us back around to your original point..
If people couldn't be prosecuted for behaving in ways that [i]you[/i] consider moronic.. then our entire prison system would be laying empty and forgotten..

Have a little break mate... your brain must be getting hot

More accusations of ignorance and lying about my credentials as a teacher now too, TJ.

"Expert witness", was what they introduced me as in British courts.

How would you like me to prove I was a teacher? Would a copy of my dusty, faded old PGCE do?

[i]How would you like me to prove I was a teacher?[/i]

How accurate are you with one of these?

[img] [/img]

Well, as usual the STW posse run out of rational arguments and resort to insult and accusations of lying. Till the next time chaps and chapesses, time to chop some wood.

Educator I assume you were not introduced as an Expert on The Law Of England and Wales(or Scotland or Northern Ireland) or the psychology of Juries?

I thought I saw a denial from you of being a teacher. if not my mistake.

However an expert witness does not make you an expert on jurisprudence. I too have been called as an expert witness.

You really do need to look at those cases as they disprove your basic premise.

.......has he gone?

So - your qualifications and credentials as an expert on jurisprudence?

I'd missed crankboys post. In France you can elect to be tried by "jurée populaire". The jury will be composed of people over 23 that are literate. You are presumed innocent.

I no longer teach, TJ. Your posting style is inquisitional and rather destructive on this forum. I'm fully aware of what case law and jurisprudence are all about having had to read through lists of cases to find precedents to support my witness statements.