Jury System Reform Defeated in Parl

Jury System Reform Defeated in Parliament
In 1999 the UK Home Secretary Jack Straw unveiled plans to limit the right to trial by jury. In the UK defendants in certain cases can choose whether they want a trial by magistrates or by judge and jury. The Home Secretary said, "England and Wales has the only jurisdiction system where defendants have the right to choose their court. In addition, trial by jury is a more expensive process than a hearing by magistrates." Defending the proposed legislation, Mr. Straw said that it would streamline the criminal justice system, save 128 million pounds a year and prevent some defendants from "working the system".
The jury trial in its modern form stems back to 1855. Serious crimes are automatically heard by a jury as well as a wide range of middle-ranking offences such as theft and handling stolen goods. There were plans to abolish jury trials for complex fraud cases. The Home Office pointed out the huge cost of such cases to the taxpayers and the strain on judges, juries and defendants. The government argued that some defendants abuse the current system

delaying their trial by pleading not guilty in order to get a trial by jury, then changing their plea at the last moment in order to get a more lenient sentence.
In both chambers of Parliament, however, the legislation was condemned as unjust, and the bill described as "one of the worst pieces of legislation to come for many years". The majority of the MPs in the House of Commons voted against the proposals to allow magistrates to decide whether defendants accused of lesser offences should be entitled to jury trial. The Lords also condemned the bill as bringing in a two-tier system in which the rich would be able to defend their reputation but the poor would not.
Opponents of the bill believe it would have restricted a
fundamental right to jury trial by one's peers and would erode public confidence in the criminal justice system. The legal
TASK 4. Answer the following questions:
1. What was the subject matter of the bill proposed by the UK
Home Secretary?
2. What were the reasons for introducing this bill?
3. What crimes do juries in England and Wales deal with?
4. In your opinion, why were there plans to abolish jury trials
for complex cases?
5. Why was the legislation rejected by both Houses of Parliament?
Explain the position of the Commons and the Lords.
6. Why would the poor suffer from this kind of legislation?
TASK 5. Study the opinion poll on the UK government initiative to limit the right to trial by jury. Which of these opinions are for I against the jury system?
The new bill is considered to be the beginning of the end for Britain's ancient jury system. The members of the public were asked a question "Do you believe it is the fairest system available or is it old-fashioned and in need of reform?"
It's clear that the system is far from ideal. Juries of ordinary people are by their very nature more influenced by emotion than facts because they aren't trained to deal with these. That being said, magistrates are probably not that much better placed to do so.
John Cahill, UK
The right for a suspect to have a jury has been welded into English law for hundreds of years. What right has Straw to deny people this basic right?
Nick, England
Flawed as the jury system is, the right to be judged by one's peers is not something that should be tossed aside lightly, and certainly not on the grounds of
expense.
Kit, UK

As a retired Cop I can tell you that the rule is this: if you are guilty get a good lawyer and a jury. If you are innocent you would have a better chance with a judge only.
Ту Northcutt, USA
In real life it doesn't make much difference whether you opt for trial by jury or trial by magistrates. In the Netherlands there is no trial by jury whatsoever, still I cannot see any signs of a despotic police state looming above the horizon, democracy going to pot, or personal freedom going down the drain.
Frank Drop, The Netherlands
If a defendant is tried by a true 'jury of his peers', then a jury trial would perhaps result in justice. If, as is currently true in the United States, and possibly also in the UK, a jury is selected from people who are not peers of the defendant, who know nothing of the case, and have nothing better to do with their time then a jury trial becomes a two-ring circus. The ring which produces the best performance wins. Justice is incidental. It becomes all about winning.
Jim, USA
The idea of 12 good men/women is flawed. The jury system is a lottery and you have no guarantee that the people have an adequate grasp of the concepts involved. The courtroom is a forum for a display of semantics by lawyers and too many people are misled by it.
Lucas, UK
Trial by jury is part of what the English-speaking nations of the world understand by democracy. The ordinary people don't only decide who shall write the laws, by electing the MPs, they also decide, by serving on juries, against whom those laws shall be applied. If you argue that they are incompetent to do the latter, then by the same token you are in fact arguing that they are incompetent to do the former.
Г. D. Erikson, UK

Although a jury by one's peers may have its flaws, I can think of no better or less flawed system available. Sure, it may be expensive, but since when has there been a price tag on justice? If somebody can come up with a better non-biased judicial system then please feel free. But until then, I see no better alternative.
Frederick Seal, USA
There seems to be a continual erosion of our judicial system. It's another step towards justice by decree. Magistrates are essentially illegitimate: they are not elected, nor randomly chosen; they are appointees of the State. Their use should be restricted to very minor cases. The right to be judged by one's peers is ancient and fundamental. Justice dispensed by 'experts' or officials is abhorrent.
Mark Parker, UK
The people need to be involved in the justice system. No juries, only appointed judges? I don't think so.
Joyce Cross, USA
Having worked as a Barrister's Clerk for some time I have come to the conclusion that jury trials do not always result in justice. Most criminals are accomplished liars, resulting in many juries being lead astray from the truth. As a result justice is not reached
Hannah Bell, England
Ask many innocent victims of this flawed system. The law is a complex business and best left to those who have devoted their lives to studying it. Replace juries drawn from ordinary people with teams of professional jurors trained and qualified to perform the function.
John, England

Результаты (украинский) 1:

Реформа системи журі перемогли в парламентіУ 1999 році у Великобританії Головна секретаря Джек Стро розкрив плани по обмежують право на суд присяжних. У Великобританії обвинувачених у певних випадках можна вибрати, чи хочуть вони проб магістратів або суддя і журі. Внутрішніх справ сказав, "Англії та Уельсу має єдиний юрисдикції системи де підсудних мають право обирати своїх суду. Крім того, суд присяжних є більш дорогими, ніж слухання через магістратів процес". Захищаючи пропонованого законодавства, пан Стро сказав, що було б оптимізувати системи кримінального правосуддя, зберегти 128 мільйонів фунтів на рік і запобігти деякі обвинуваченого від "працює в системі".Журі судового розгляду, в її сучасній формі стебла повернутися до 1855. Журі, а також широкий спектр середньої правопорушення, такі як крадіжки і обробки вкрадені товари автоматично лунають тяжких злочинів. Там були плани на скасування присяжних для шахрайства складних випадках. Домашній офіс вказав на величезні витрати на такі випадки платники податків і навантаження на суддів, журі та обвинуваченим. Уряд стверджував, що деякі підсудних з підрядниками поточного затримує їх судового розгляду, не визнання себе винним для того, щоб отримати на суд присяжних, потім змінивши їх про визнання провини в останній момент для того, щоб отримати більш м'яким речення.In both chambers of Parliament, however, the legislation was condemned as unjust, and the bill described as "one of the worst pieces of legislation to come for many years". The majority of the MPs in the House of Commons voted against the proposals to allow magistrates to decide whether defendants accused of lesser offences should be entitled to jury trial. The Lords also condemned the bill as bringing in a two-tier system in which the rich would be able to defend their reputation but the poor would not.Opponents of the bill believe it would have restricted afundamental right to jury trial by one's peers and would erode public confidence in the criminal justice system. The legalTASK 4. Answer the following questions:1. What was the subject matter of the bill proposed by the UKHome Secretary?2. What were the reasons for introducing this bill?3. What crimes do juries in England and Wales deal with?4. In your opinion, why were there plans to abolish jury trialsfor complex cases?5. Why was the legislation rejected by both Houses of Parliament?Explain the position of the Commons and the Lords.6. Why would the poor suffer from this kind of legislation?TASK 5. Study the opinion poll on the UK government initiative to limit the right to trial by jury. Which of these opinions are for I against the jury system?Новий законопроект вважається початок кінця для Великобританії стародавніх журі системи. Представників громадськості були задані питання "Чи вірите ви це є найбільш справедливим система доступна або його старомодним і потребує реформи?"Зрозуміло, що система є далекою від ідеалу. Журі простих людей є самою своєю природою більш під впливом емоцій ніж факти тому, що вони не є навчання на ці. Це, як кажуть, магістратів, ймовірно, не що набагато кращого місця, щоб зробити це.Джон Cahill, ВеликобританіяПраво підозрюваного мати журі зварені в англійському праві протягом сотень років. Яке право має соломи заперечувати люди цього основні права?Нік, АнгліяНедоліки, як система журі, право судити з однолітками свого не є те, що повинні бути кинув бік злегка, і, звичайно, не на з grounds дотриманнярахунок.Комплект, Великобританія Як колишній поліцейський я можу вам сказати що це правило полягає в наступному: Якщо ви винні отримати хороший адвокат і професійні журі. Якщо ти невинних б у вас більше шансів з суддя тільки.Ту Northcutt, СШАУ реальному житті це не робить великої різниці чи ви виберете суд присяжних або суд суддів. В Нідерландах немає не суд присяжних б то не було, все одно не бачу жодних ознак деспотичним поліцейську державу, що нависла над горизонтом, демократії, збирається горщик або особистої свободи, спускаючись у каналізацію.Френк падіння, НідерландиIf a defendant is tried by a true 'jury of his peers', then a jury trial would perhaps result in justice. If, as is currently true in the United States, and possibly also in the UK, a jury is selected from people who are not peers of the defendant, who know nothing of the case, and have nothing better to do with their time then a jury trial becomes a two-ring circus. The ring which produces the best performance wins. Justice is incidental. It becomes all about winning.Jim, USAThe idea of 12 good men/women is flawed. The jury system is a lottery and you have no guarantee that the people have an adequate grasp of the concepts involved. The courtroom is a forum for a display of semantics by lawyers and too many people are misled by it.Lucas, UKTrial by jury is part of what the English-speaking nations of the world understand by democracy. The ordinary people don't only decide who shall write the laws, by electing the MPs, they also decide, by serving on juries, against whom those laws shall be applied. If you argue that they are incompetent to do the latter, then by the same token you are in fact arguing that they are incompetent to do the former.Г. D. Erikson, UKAlthough a jury by one's peers may have its flaws, I can think of no better or less flawed system available. Sure, it may be expensive, but since when has there been a price tag on justice? If somebody can come up with a better non-biased judicial system then please feel free. But until then, I see no better alternative.Frederick Seal, USAThere seems to be a continual erosion of our judicial system. It's another step towards justice by decree. Magistrates are essentially illegitimate: they are not elected, nor randomly chosen; they are appointees of the State. Their use should be restricted to very minor cases. The right to be judged by one's peers is ancient and fundamental. Justice dispensed by 'experts' or officials is abhorrent.Mark Parker, UKThe people need to be involved in the justice system. No juries, only appointed judges? I don't think so.Joyce Cross, USAHaving worked as a Barrister's Clerk for some time I have come to the conclusion that jury trials do not always result in justice. Most criminals are accomplished liars, resulting in many juries being lead astray from the truth. As a result justice is not reachedHannah Bell, EnglandAsk many innocent victims of this flawed system. The law is a complex business and best left to those who have devoted their lives to studying it. Replace juries drawn from ordinary people with teams of professional jurors trained and qualified to perform the function.John, England

Результаты (украинский) 3:

Журі реформування системи переміг у парламенті
у 1999 році Великої Британії Головна секретар роз'єму соломи оприлюднила плани обмежують право на судовий розгляд журі конкурсу. У Великій Британії відповідачів у деяких випадках може обрати, чи вони хочуть випробування суддя маґістратури або і журі. Головна Генеральний секретар сказав, що 'Англії та Уельсі має тільки юрисдикції система, де обвинувачені мають право обирати своїх суду. Крім того,Судовий процес журі конкурсу є більш ніж на дорогий процес розгляду справи магістратури". захист пропонованих законопроектах, пан соломи сказала, що це буде впорядкувати системи кримінальної юстиції, зберегти 128 мільйонів фунтів на рік і перешкодити деякі обвинувачених від 'робота системи" .
журі судовий процес в її сучасному вигляді стебла повернутися до 1855.ТЯЖКИХ злочинів, автоматично чули журі а також широкий спектр послуг з середнім рівнем рейтингу правопорушення такі, як крадіжка та обробки вкрадених товарів. Існують плани щодо скасування журі випробування для комплексного випадки шахрайства. У домашньому офісі вказав на величезні витрати на такі випадки на платників податків та навантаження на суддів, суддями та відповідача. Уряд стверджував, що деякі обвинувачені зловживання нинішньої системи