From Mr. John Galt

A bit circular, the path leading to this, but as good a reason to retain the jury as anyone has ever come up with:

The Jury box is one of the essential pressure release valves that stops us being French.

Not really possible to improve upon that as a justification, is it?

22 thoughts on “From Mr. John Galt”

  1. Actually they do have jury trials in France, though the threshold is higher than for English Crown Courts, a potential yen year sentence or thereabouts.
    Successive Justice Ministers have tried to get rid of the assises, not because they are expensive, but because they are unpredictable. But as John Galt implies, that’s precisely the point.

  2. Look at the Salmond trial. The media would’ve had you believe (and had me believe) that there was a mountain of evidence against the guy and he was going doon.

    Fifteen dour Scotsmen and women took only a couple of hours to decide “nah, this is bollocks” on every single charge.

    Would a judge have ruled the same? I very much doubt it, and not because judges are cleverer or more trustworthy than a random selection of British subjects – they’re clearly bent in all sorts of ways.

  3. Similarly the core argument for not proven north of the border – its a pressure release valve and its stops us being english.

  4. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    No, the massively increased frequency of appearance of potato based dishes in the upper arm / lower neck regions stop you being English.

  5. Juries in France are not the same as UK, being six citizens with three judges. Two thirds majority is required to convict.

    The point about the UK system is that whilst all the other elements of the process are agents of the State, the final arbiter, the lay jury, is completely independent and outside its influence. The jurors do not adjudicate law, but common sense justice. Jury nullification can even ignore an unjust law or law being applied unjustly.

  6. “…not because judges are cleverer or more trustworthy than a random selection of British subjects…”

    They are certainly cleverer than most people, or they would not be where they are. And they are more trustworthy than the various socialists and leftists, not to mention the underclass and the RoPers, who collectively make up about half the UK population.

    The issue with the judiciary is their judgement, distorted as it is by diversity training, sociology, etc.

  7. I think the reason judges would be more likely to convict is because they’re marinated in the law, in seeing it upheld in court. It’d be a betrayal of a deeply held instinct to indulge – and indulging is I think how most would see it – in jury nullification.

    There is also the issue, which you see with lay magistrates and District judges in the mags’ Court, that an experienced tribunal of fact has usually heard it all before when it comes to defences, and so is much more cynical than would be a lay jury.

  8. “an experienced tribunal of fact has usually heard it all before when it comes to defences, and so is much more cynical than would be a lay jury.”
    The defence might say, M’Lud, they’ve heard it all before because the police don’t use much imagination when fitting up suspects for things they’re innocent of

  9. Theo – dunno. They’re definitely good little swots with impressive vocab, is that what we mean by clever? Seems like we’ve got too many people like this, and they’re all fucking useless.

    Mamma always told me that clever is as clever does. There was nothing obviously clever about the MacPherson Report, or Spider-Hag and her doddering accomplices unanimously ruling that Brexit Man Bad.

    Only thing these chief priests and scribes seem to be really clever about is consuming taxpayer resources while faithfully enforcing leftist theodicy.

    As for trustworthy, fuck no. I’d trust gypsies before I would a British judge. At least the tinkers only want to overcharge you for shitty driveway work. Judges, otoh, would take pleasure in fucking up your life for making honest observations about gypsies. I’m not a fan of Tommy Robinson – seems like he’s an idiot at best – but I’ll never forget the picture of that judge laughing along with plod as they had the guy arrested, charged, convicted and banged up in record time for the crime of telling people what’s going on.

  10. The Scots tried to push through suspending jury trials during the pandemic, no doubt once it happened there would have be a good reason not to restart them (along with an excuse for re-trying Salmond)
    The lawyers objected so they changed their plans, but shows what authoritarian little shits the politicians are.

  11. “I’d trust gypsies before I’d trust a British judge”.

    I’ve pondered a response to that, but I suspected I’d end up like BoJo before the referendum – writing essays for and against Brexit.

    So I’ll say only this, Steve: as someone with ample experience of gypsies and of judges, I think you understate the gypsies’ malevolence…

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    One of the defences of juries vs any number of judges is they are our best defence against group think. I know we think that’s a modern psychological understanding but perhaps our ancestors were wiser than we thought?

  13. Absolutely, Mr in ND.

    Until majority verdicts were introduced in, I think, the late 60s.

    But juries are still pretty hot.

    PS. strange, perhaps, to relate: in my experience, criminal lawyers, including judges, admire juries and do not to see their demise.

  14. Michael van der Riet

    One thing that the rocket surgeons have forgotten is that the average UK citizen just lurves jury duty at a whopping sixty-five pounds a day and will happily close up shop, put the career on hold and cancel the Thailand getaway for the opportunity to serve. It’s forced labour you bloody idiots.

  15. @Steve

    You believed MSM on Salmond? Brave admission, more fool you. My opinion is he’s a slimy git, but women prostitute themselves – then regret when marriage doesn’t happen

    Do/did you believe Biden & Kavanugh accusers? Meghan Markle?

  16. MVDR,

    Sixty five pounds?

    Here in texas we get six dollars and that won’t even pay for the day’s parking.

  17. MikHeil Van Rentals–forced labour only bcos it shows many how full of shite the “law” is. From kissing a crims arse to Beaks in their dirty, old-time pub-ceiling yellow wigs–it shows people that most of the “majesty” of the law is bullshit.

    It does give decent people a chance to occasionally say a big “NO” to political and law-dog shite.

    Hallowed Be–with the Fish-Faced Hags plans to abolish the remnants of Scotland’s free speech you will need a great many “Not Proven” verdicts to bash the short-arsed Marxist cunt down to size.

  18. An advantage of juries I don’t think anyone has put yet.

    Judges have to judge many trials, not just one. They are a “known” figure with a reputation to maintain in the legal profession eg with a view to further promotion.

    A jury member just gets to decide on one result and nothing personal rests on it for them.

    Unless they are presiding over their final trial before retirement, it’s very much more difficult for a judge to go out on a limb and make a decision they know will be unpopular or controversial even if they think it would be the correct thing to do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *