Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 12 Good Men
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 12 Good Men
I loved Latin at school. My award for Latin poetry recital is carefully preserved and I remain mildly hopeful that, one day, it might even prove useful. Poetry aside, it was then seen as necessary to become a lawyer. For the first few years of practice those Latin sayings encapsulating legal rules became firmly lodged in my head. Then they were no longer compulsory, plain clear English becoming the rule. Quite right. But one saying seems particularly apt these days: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio – no-one can make a claim based on their own dishonourable conduct. More widely, it expresses the idea – or, perhaps, the hope – that people, governments even, should not be able to take advantage of the damage caused by their failings to do that which they would not otherwise get away with.
Comments
Jury trials are a must
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1275899253039267842
Remember that Johnson's girlfriend is supposed to have yelled at him during a fight over a ruined sofa that 'he didn't have a clue about money'.
Could potentially apply to the financing of his mega plans.
What makes me laugh is that the Brexiteers claimed that if we did not leave the EU, Britain would become unrecognisable. Now those same conmen are in charge and we start by jettisoning Jurys.
And no... this is not a plea to rejoin or anything like it. We have made our Brexit bed and now we have to lie in it, but I laugh every time those who promised to save Britain put another bit of it through the blender...
20% maybe?
Juries are just the start.
There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.
Embarrassing hyperbole seems to be a key part of The Clown’s repertoire. It’ll be painful by the end of his disastrous tenure.
I love reciting Catullus 16.
Next he'll be proposing the widespread suspension of habeas corpus on mainland Britain.
Sic semper tyrannis.
I am FURIOUS about this proposal.
It’s a disgrace.
Starmer should have pummelled Johnson for this at PMQs.
The very strength of a jury trial is that it is harder to throw the result and because of that, people trust juries.
Boris JohnsonDom Cummings is much of a liberal as I am a fan of pineapple on pizza."Corrected for you.
Johnson hasn't a clue what's going on.
This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.
Newsnight: "Jenrick not available"
I could list the many flaws in this site, but what’s the point? Nothing will be done anyway. This is an astonishingly conservative place. In more ways than one.
Over Jenrick.
Labour need to keep on that theme - I suspect it will have traction after the Barnard Castle escapade.
'Accept a caution and you'll be able to leave here without a stain on your reputation or you'll have a public trial with your name in the papers and on TV.'
What they fail to tell you is if you accept a caution you'll have criminal record which rules you out of so many jobs, and in some instances invalidates things like your car insurance or stops you having a bank account with most banks.
On the latter point you don't even realise until you have an accident.
Better for ten guilty men to walk free than one innocent to be wrongly convicted. The right to a jury trial should never be qualified.
It's like rereading Jennings and Darbyshire as they finally make it into the local cake shop.
What’s the magic about 12?
We are at the point of reopening schools and workplaces with bubble concepts where necessary, if they need to be necessary for trials then so be it. Should be easy to track and trace if anything goes wrong.
I agree with you on the importance of the jury trial, but why is 7 not acceptable during this temporary period? As Carlotta noted it was ok in WWII
If someone is wrongfully convicted they should be able to appeal. If someone is wrongfully acquitted that is a price worth paying to keep the right of trial by jury.
One problem you might have in your defence of the current jury system is that many of us have sat on juries. Whilst my own experiences did not make we wish to abolish trial by jury, they did make me think there is a lot wrong with them that could and should be addressed. The list is long so I'll stick to one fairly uncontroversial question.
Why does it have to be 12 jurors? What is special about that number? why not, say, 10, or perhaps the 7 that others have suggested?
And if I may be allowed a supplementary.... What is wrong with having specialist jurors for certain types of trial where specialist knowledge would be a distinct advantage? I am thinking particularly of fraud or similar financial offences where the technicalities may be beyond most people but straight forward enough for people with a financial background. Why would it be wrong for the jury to ;know its subject'?
Got to go out for a bit but back in about an hour.
A temporary reduction in size of juries to permit social distancing is something I feel uncomfortable with, but so long as it follows WWIIs precedence and is swiftly lifted as soon as social distancing is lifted that's a different matter entirely to ending trial by jury which is inexcusable.