the new supreme court

[Sombrero]

should be a jury type thing, of 10 of your average blokes, and 10 of your average lasses - just as you'd elect a jury, and they. And they would preside over decisions made by the court of human rights and the H&S executive etc...

All this to bring back a modicum of common sense !!

 

[joinerjohn]

Because it's a court, it will be filled with judges. The same judges who refuse to deport foreign criminals and hatemongers from this country. The same judges who decide that a criminal has more rights than the victim. The exact same judges who rule that drunken Muslim girls who attacked a white girl, should walk free, because they were not used to the effects of alcohol. The same judges who rule an asylum seeker who ran over and killed a young girl, should stay in this country because he has a right to a family life, (completely forgetting, that the young girl had the right to a family life. Her parents had the right to a daughter.)
Don't expect anything different from the Supreme Court, that you would expect from any court in the country these days.

 

[Sombrero]

John you're rightly cynical, hence my proposal... the commonsence jury would be THE judge...

all the usual procedures would remain, but the "jury of common sense" would preside above all that..

we'd vote in the principle and mechanism, and love the results.... (bit of a tabloid dream i suspect!- but hey ho!)

 

[chapeau]

Isn't your proposal rather similar to what we call Parliament?

 

[joinerjohn]

my proposal... the commonsence jury would be THE judge...

all the usual procedures would remain, but the "jury of common sense" would preside above all that..

Would this be a jury like the one in the recent Chris Huene's ex wifes case??

One even asked the judge if he/she could reach a decision based on evidence which hadn't been presented in court, by either the prosecution or the defence? WTF The same jury who asked the judge to define, reasonable doubt?

Dunno if we'd be able to get a jury with common sense.

 

[chapeau]

OK joinerjohn, define reasonable doubt for us.

And you aren't allowed to use the word reasonable (which is how the judge defined it - "Doubt that is reasonable" FFS)

 

[joinerjohn]

Reasonable doubt, where a juror has reached a logical conclusion based upon the evidence presented to him/her.
Or perhaps where the juror has doubts, the ability to weigh up the evidence and say, "Well it wasn't six of one and half a dozen of the other, but it was nine of one and three of the other.

 

[chapeau]

Well, your first explanation makes no logical sense and demonstrates you don't understand what it's about at all. Your second is a lot better but still falls short of explaining it.

Now, I don't blame you for that at all. It's a difficult concept but much loved by judges who have spent their life immersed in the subject.

They take normal people off the street and expect them to understand something like this which is a very abstract concept. And when the jury in this case asked the question they were told

These are normal English words
Reasonable doubt is doubt which is reasonable.

FFS.

I were once on a jury, in a foreign country, where judges don't tend to have their heads up their asses like they do in the UK. What I gathered from the judges instructions was what a not guilty verdict meant.

Judge said if you thought he did it but you weren't sure then you should say not guilty.
If you thought he probably did it, not guilty.
But you didn't need to be without doubt. But any doubts had to be so overwhelmed by the other evidence that he did it, and that would require you find the defendent guilty.

As it happens I hung the jury and the defendent walked free as innocent as he was when he walked in.

 

[LastMagicBean]

should be a jury type thing, of 10 of your average blokes, and 10 of your average lasses - just as you'd elect a jury, and they. And they would preside over decisions made

Nonsense.

What we have to put up with now is ten chapeau's and two decent human beings.
That's what we will always be faced with .....people not knowing the difference between right and wrong.

The first ten in my example, should be in the dock themselves for failure to rattle their heads in the morning.

 

[JBR]

Because it's a court, it will be filled with judges. The same judges who refuse to deport foreign criminals and hatemongers from this country. The same judges who decide that a criminal has more rights than the victim. The exact same judges who rule that drunken Muslim girls who attacked a white girl, should walk free, because they were not used to the effects of alcohol. The same judges who rule an asylum seeker who ran over and killed a young girl, should stay in this country because he has a right to a family life, (completely forgetting, that the young girl had the right to a family life. Her parents had the right to a daughter.)
Don't expect anything different from the Supreme Court, that you would expect from any court in the country these days.

Well said. There certainly seems to be an ongoing problem with judges' decisions these days. What we really need in this country are judges with both legal knowledge and common sense.

But are these two things mutually exclusive?

 

[misterdubya]

Just let a cage fighter at em martian.