Reply With QuoteJury every time ....
Notoriously unreliable at bringing guilty verdicts when they are needed
(Or so I've heard at the bar)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would you prefer to be tried by a jury or a judge...
I have never been before a jury but if i had to i dont feel overly confident in the general public being in control of my freedom...can you opt out? Had a quick google and it does not seem possible...just checking incase the wife burns the spuds again on sunday
Jury every time ....
Notoriously unreliable at bringing guilty verdicts when they are needed
(Or so I've heard at the bar)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Law of averages says they put a fair few innocents away alsoOriginally Posted by Falcata
Some offences used to be "triable either way" ...haven't done criminal law in years (the pay is appalling) so this might have changed
Not sure the law of averages takes into account the need of proof "beyond all reasonable doubt" .. Which would suggest guilty walking free outweigh innocents being put away
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks..hopefully never need to choose ....IF i have the choice .
I would ( depending on case and evidence) prefer a judge who should be able to base a judgment on pure evidence rather than the public using there common sense/ misjudgments.
your guilty. Try your luck with a jury..innocent hope the judge sees the evidence as it is... both can go tits up i suppose
I agree...if the public doing there duty understood that principle.. a cross section of people is a dangerous cross section imho.
Hopefully we will never need to rely on are opinions.
If I were on trial then I would be innocent - as if I weren't then I like to think that I would have pleaded guilty in the first place. In which case I would only need to appear in front of a judge for sentencing.
So if on trial I think I would rather have a jury.
Either way it would be imperative for me to avoid a custodial sentence as I am far too good looking to be banged up with a load of rough types.
Ive seen the Shawshank Redemption.
Judge.
The jurors IQ isn't taken into account.
In my experience (back in the late '80s) it should be a factor before appointing anyone to a jury.
I was appalled at some of the comments during our deliberations.
z
In light of the above I have changed my mind and will now plump for being dealt with by a Judge.
^^^Quite so imh experience...several of my fellow jurors were barely literate/capable of forming a rational argument.
frightening, actually.
You're right mate ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's just the drink talking!
Lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I was guilty and trying it on i would rather risk a Jury than a Judge, (not that I am of course). Have worked in both Crown and Magistrates courts
Triable either way means it can be dealt with in Magistrates court (3 JP's or if unlucky a Stipendiary Magistrate) or Crown court (Judge and jury). The only way you would appear just in front of a Judge would be if you are pleading guilty and he will be sentencing you. I think they did away with Diplock courts some while ago. These were used during The troubles where juries suffered from sectarianism.
If you are guilty, you'd be better off in front of a jury because they can be baffled with bulls**t whereas a Judge will understand whats going on and not get distracted. As has been mentioned, some jurors are appalling. Conversely, if you are clearly innocent, you really would be better off having your fate decided by a Judge.
Depends if i were guilty or innocent!
I worked with a magistrate judge for a while....unique fella.but a fair fella as well. Took his duty very seriously..unlike the general public...
How about having your trial televised as mass entertainment?
I disagree strongly in principle with the magistrate system, time it was scrapped IMO.
Paul
This!
Jury if guilty = chance of getting off
Judge if innocent = Good chance of acquittal
Posting Permissions
