Forum menu
Damn! 🙄
Educator I'd happily hold myself out as an expert on the English criminal legal system albeit especially in view of yesterdays performance a fallible one. I know little of the French but a quick google suggests that the french Inquisitorial system has little option to elect a jury trial
" Criminal court proceedings can be overseen by a juge dd'instruction. The judge who is appointed to the case is in charge of preparing the case and assessing whether it should come to court. In legal jargon, this system is known as inquisitorial, as opposed to the adversarial system used in Common Law legal systems.
In court, the judge or judges arbirate between the the prosecution and the defence, both of which are generally represented by their lawyers, or avocats. The French judicial system does not have recourse to juries except in assize courts.
If the case goes to appeal, the arguments of the prosecution and the defence are taken over by appeals specialists known as Avoués. "
genuinely in a spirit of enlightenment can you clarify your point?
Edukator - MemberI no longer teach, TJ
Oh bugger! Just realised I mixed you up with Don simon on your claims to be a teacher. Oops 😳 Sorry
Edukator:
"Inquisitorial" just means the judge takes an active role in investigating as opposed to our "adversarial" system. It's a perfectly accurate, unobjectionable standard term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
[b]You've brought up your "credentials" and your experience in numerous legal systems - in what capacity was that, then?
[/b]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)...
I'm asking the jury to doubt police statements just as they should doubt the word of the accused.
This is not the law of England. In fact, the law is that there is not a balancing test between the dubiousness of the word of the accused and the word of the police (by which you probably mean prosecution witnesses). The law is that the prosecution should prove that the defendant is guilty of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt, which is a somewhat different test.
Your enthusiasm for the inquisitorial (now that we've all learned what that means) system of justice is perplexing considering your distrust of wily lawyers, considering the process in the cour d'assises actually involved a conclave of judges with lay people. If there were ever a situation that were prone to "professional advantage", that would be it.
Your supposed having appeared as an expert witness doesn't speak for your supposed "credentials" to speak about comparative legal practice or procedure.
Basically, you know nothing, you're a bullshitter and you should crawl back under your bridge.
Dear me, Kona, one expresses an opinion and gets character assissinated.
Now if I apparently know nothing and should therefore not express an opinion why do you support a system in which jurors that know nothing are obliged to express an opinion?
If you'd read your own Wiki page on the inquisitorial system in France you'd have got as far as:
[i]"However, this is no longer the case"[/i]
Under current French law:
[i]"If the examining judge decides there is a valid case against a certain suspect, the accused is bound over for an adversarial trial by jury. The examining judge does not sit on the trial court vested with trying the case and is in fact prohibited from sitting for future cases involving the same defendant." [/i]
The French system is now adversarial.
Now I could launch into a tyrade of insults but would rather STWers form their own opinion on who is bullshitting based on reading the Wiki link you provided in detail (rather than reading the heading and jumping to the wrong conclusion).
Edit: I've edited the second quote as my first cut and paste missed a bit I wanted.
I'm not ot sure that wiki would be the absolute authority on this but it does clearly state the French system is Inquisitorial and also states that the final trial is now more like an adversarial one which clearly implies it is not an adversarial one .
back on to the essential point Joanne Fraill would be just as badly off under the french system as the English as she meets Educators report of the minimum standard for a french jury what with being over 23 and able to read and write.
It is also a rather weird world view that would keep a 19 year old genius out of the jury but a 24 year old literate fool in. Indeed being illiterate is not a marker for stupidity or impeded reasoning nor is the ability to write of itself a sign of a sound and rational mind.
Read again crankboy. The Wiki heading is misleading due to use of the word "modern" which includes the entire 20th and 21st centuries. You'll note that the "historical" part ends at the 19th century.
The "current" French trial by jury has all the elements of an adversarial system and non of the elements of an inquisitorail system. If you think that a curent French jury trial has an element that makes it inquisitorial please state what this element is.
How would you describe British magistrate court proceedings BTW? 😉
Your last post is a bunch of old fanny that waffles on about the different adversarial and inquisitorial elements of aspects of the French system.
It has nothing to say about:
- the fact that you claim not to be ignorant but you didn't know what the perfectly ordinary term "inquisitorial" meant (which shows that you don't know what you're talking about)
- the fact that the phrase "this is not longer the case" refers to the method of committal for trial, not the trial itself (which shows that you can't read). The committal still appears to be done by the bench (which is exactly what happens in England, by the way)
- the fact that the French system is not the only system that is inquisitorial, and that the fact that elements of it may be (pseudo-) adversarial doesn't mean that an inquisitorial system doesn't exist and the word "inquisitorial" isn't an apt word to describe it any more than the operation of the Coroner's Court means that the English system isn't adversarial (which shows that you can't think critically)
- your comment that you're "fully aware of what case law and jurisprudence are all about" and have mysterious "credentials" and "experience" (but don't state what they are)
- you flounced from this thread already.
I'd love to carry on with this gay repartee forever but I think I've come to the conclusion that on the balance of probabilities you're talking through your trousers and it's not worth pursuing this more.
Cheerio!
Joanne Fraill is in the slammer purely because she went against the will of a judge
You can push your attitude with the police, the lawyers and even the tax man but don't ever try it with a judge
This from the Sydney law review 2006
"1. An Introduction to the cour d’assises
The cour d’assises is the French jury court. It was introduced into France in 1791,closely modelled on the British criminal jury. In its present form it is comprised of three judges (a President and two assessors) and nine jurors who, since 1941, sit and deliberate together both on culpability and punishment. It has jurisdiction over
crimes, or offences punishable with 10 or more years imprisonment. A two-thirds majority (8 out of the 12) is required for any finding against the accused in relation to culpability. The jurors do not have access, as do the judges, to the dossier recording the investigation of the case before them and must rely on the oral evidence of witnesses as adduced by the presiding judge at the hearing. No
directions are given to the jurors by the presiding judge except that they are told that they must have an ‘intime conviction’ of guilt before they can convict. It will be apparent that the cour d’assises functions differently to an anglophone jury court particularly as regards differentiation of function between judge(s) and jurors."
Sorry for the long quote but if this is the current French model then while it takes as its inspiration the British criminal Jury it is still clearly Inquisitorial . The defining feature of The Inquisitorial method is the judges power to question witnesses and call evidence where as in the adversarial the parties select their witnesses and evidence and they ask the questions. Also note the Judge in the French system gets a vote on Guilt as do the assessors.
If I'm wrong please tell me I'm happy to learn and genuinely interested but please explain why both i and the Sydney law Journal are out of date.
The English (don't start TJ) magistrates system is adversarial as is The Crown Court some Magistrates some District Judges and some Crown Court Judges can try and become Inquisitorial but they can also get told to wind their neck in either politely or "with the very greatest respect".
Flounced, Kona? Nope, I took a break to cut wood and stated as much.
Please quote the entire post where you think I have demonstrated that I don't know what the inquisitorial system is. This is what I said and it is confirmed by the Wiki page you linked:
[i]"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."[/i]
I did think critically, look at the smiley after my reference to the British magistrates' court.
Fortunately other STWers can read. They can read through all my posts and clearly see that you are distorting what I have said.
If my statement that I've appeared as an expert witness in British courts on several cases isn't good enough for you, you are showing extremely bad faith. I've also stated on other threads that I worked as a translator for a French court in cases concerning British drug runners so I'll repeat it here (you can check the qualifications I'd need to do that).
The defence has access to the documents in the judges possession and the defence can therefore bring out the contents for the jury's examination during the the trial. The jury is therefore never denied information that either the prosecution or defence deem pertinent. Why do you think Lance never took on l'Equipe? Because l'Equipe would have had access to all the information collected by the police and the judge on Lance. There is therefore nothing inquisitorial in your first two paragraphs.
The judge in court (rather than the examining judge) directs proceedings but relies on the prosecution and defence lawyers to question witnesses and present evidence. Adversarial.
#hits refresh#
No-one. 🙁
Shall we do the German system now? I love watching the reenacted court cases on German TV on rainy mornings. It all looks pretty adversarial to me.
"No one" only me see mine from 55 mins ago which points out quite clearly how the French system is inquisitorial show me something that says the Sydney law review is wrong.
THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDGE IN THE FRENCH SYSTEM IN ASKING QUESTIONS DIRECTING THE EVIDENCE AND VOTING ON GUILT MAKE IT INQUISITORIAL.
I watched [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_(TV_series) ]Spiral[/url] last month and was really confused about Judge Roban's role. If this thread resolves nothing, as I suspect it will, at least it's enlightened me on the inquisitorial aspects of the French legal system, so thanks.
Shouting doesn't make you right. On the first point you are wrong.
It's the president that directs proceedings but the prosecution lawyers that present the case including evidence in their possession they deem pertinent. The defence responds in true adversarial fashion. All those present: jurors, president, accused and witnesses are free to ask questions of the adverse parties. The president's main role is to give everyone the chance to speak, not to dominate proceedings.
You are correct to say that the president has a vote. So do two other court officials. These officals are outnumbered 9 : 3 by the popular jury, 12 :3 on appeal.
You are exagerating the power of the president and ignoring the adversarial nature of the debate to suit your agenda, crankboy. The Wiki page linked by Kona is clear enough about the adversarial character dominates the curent system as the power of the judge has been reduced over the years, most recently following lost cases in the European court of human rights and measures to prevent a repeat of the Outrau affair.
Oi edukator - did you get your apology?
Been away we seem way OT and far beyond my knowledge and I lack the zeal to google , and create the façade of knowledge, unlike some of you
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?
That sir is a very good point. I understand why competency may be a reasonable prerequisite but did not affect this case or this person IMHO
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.
Well as you note the officers fabricated evidence. I dont know why you think that shows juries are rubbish. Its an argument for not having corrupt coppers. Where they were convicted I suspect [ given there was no successful appeal] there was a large body of evidence to support the conviction . I dont think they were convicted solely because the jury was too stupid to see they were innocent. No system will prevent miscarriages of justice sadly.
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
I dont think he does lack understanding and I dont see why so many posters have attacked him personally or his understanding. He seems a bright articulate person, though I dont often agree with him. He has responded with dignity despite the repeated attacks from a number of people on here. I dont think there is any call for this here tbh.