I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report
said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction
would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap).
The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.
The commentariat class clearly has issues with this plan, especially
since several other measures might well be tried before resorting to this.
It's a bit frightening that the reaction to this proposal hasn't been as vehemently negative as it ought to be; mostly, the commentators are
saying "Hold on, what's this? Don't they realize the implications of
this? We're going to need to keep a close eye on this!", as opposed to
"HELL NO!!!". But maybe that's just innate British patience for trial balloons sent up by the politicians on the theory that it will never
happen.
In any case, the commentariat has noted a substantial number of U-turns
on Starmer's part with respect to policies that he's announced and then backed away from when there was a backlash - they seem to agreed he's
made 13 U-turns so far - so maybe they think getting rid of jury trials
for lesser offences is so absurd that they needn't worry about it very
much.
If you use your favourite search engine, I expect you'll find lots more information on this proposal anywhere you trust but here's a couple that seem relevant.
Here's one commentator talking about the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2oaBznJYs [12 minutes]
And here's the Black Belt Barrister's take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn9jCGyHbXw [18 minutes]
I had a look on YouTube . . .
I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report
said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction
would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap).
The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.
Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report >>said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction >>would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria >>look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap). >>The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.
Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up
as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to >accommodate it".
That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal
law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the
presumption of innocence. That's too much of a pain in the ass for the >government. Unless they caught you actually selling someone drugs, it
was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a >reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer, so they created the rebuttable >presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of >drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling >drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.
Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where
the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And >for some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.
This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials >take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because
the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing
the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains
the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions,
that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government >colluding to violate it.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report
said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction
would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria >>> look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap). >>> The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.
Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up
as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to
accommodate it".
That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal
law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the
presumption of innocence. That's too much of a pain in the ass for the
government. Unless they caught you actually selling someone drugs, it
was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer, so they created the rebuttable >> presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of >> drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling
drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.
Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where
the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And >> for some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.
This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials >> take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because
the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing
the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains
the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions,
that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government >> colluding to violate it.
These are excellent points. I always liked this one. Contraband is
found. The person who brought the contraband isn't there, or police
aren't aware of who had. That's ok. Anyone near the contraband gets
arrested and is presumed to have had possession of it if not ownership.
Everybody is clearly guilty in a What's Up, Doc? (1972) scenario in
which all charactors had possession of one of the contraband-containing
plaid overnight bags in error at various points in the story.
Jan 25, 2026 at 12:13:32 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of >>>>scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report >>>>said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction >>>>would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be >>>>for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria >>>>look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap). >>>>The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.
Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up
as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to >>>accommodate it".
That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal
law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the
presumption of innocence. That's too much of a pain in the ass for the >>>government. Unless they caught you actually selling someone drugs, it
was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a >>>reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer, so they created the rebuttable >>>presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of >>>drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling >>>drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.
Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where >>>the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And >>>for some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.
This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials >>>take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because >>>the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing >>>the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains >>>the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions, >>>that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government >>>colluding to violate it.
These are excellent points. I always liked this one. Contraband is
found. The person who brought the contraband isn't there, or police
aren't aware of who had. That's ok. Anyone near the contraband gets >>arrested and is presumed to have had possession of it if not ownership.
Or the plethora of body cam police videos on YouTube where cops respond
to a house party and find alcohol and kids that are underage, but the
kids were smart enough to put their cups and bottles down before the cops
got inside and none of them are actually in possession of the booze. So
they charge everyone in the house with "constructive possession" of
the alcohol, even if you're upstairs in a bedroom with that hot girl
you've been hitting on and you just managed to get past the bra hook
and are about to see the promised land and there's no alcohol anywhere
in your vicinity.
COPS/D.A.s: "It's too hard for us to prove a case against everyone so we >should be able to just ditch the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of >innocence to make our jobs easier."
COURTS: Sounds good to me! Proceed.
. . .
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 232:08:42 |
| Calls: | 193 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,667 |