Philosophy Now Forum

For all but the most serious cases, such as rape and murder. Here's The Guardian gushing over what a good idea this is.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ice-system

Trial by jury was established in English law by King Ethelred in AD 997, though this drew on much earlier customs, and greatly expanded by Henry II in 1176, until finally becoming enshrined in the Magna Carta in 1215, as a universal right for all subjects. Along with English Common Law in general, of which it forms an essential part, it is surely one of our greatest gifts to the world.

And now, just like that, our esteemed Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, has decided to scrap it. The excuse is that this will clear the huge backlog in our system, which is on the point of collapse, but no authoritarian government has ever liked jury trials, and the true motivation is blatantly obvious.

Lammy, the genius who believes that men can grow a cervix.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:51 am Lammy, the genius who believes that men can grow a cervix.

Yes, the very one.

I don't think he'll get away with it, to be honest, but with this government, who knows.

It's pretty astonishing. When I first saw a mention of this proposal about a month ago, I assumed it was fake news. Apparently not. But as your posting suggests, this is not some small cost-saving reform. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers is one of the main foundations of the UK legal system.

I feel a sense of outrage, but so what? I think what we need are reasons and arguments, not emotions. What are the main arguments for retaining jury trials? What are the main arguments for abolishing them (except for very serious cases)?

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:48 am And now, just like that, our esteemed Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, has decided to scrap it. The excuse is that this will clear the huge backlog in our system, which is on the point of collapse, but no authoritarian government has ever liked jury trials, and the true motivation is blatantly obvious.

Look up bench trial, history and practice. It is not radical as you say.

The real problem is not a distinction between jury and bench trial, the real problem is that there are no standards by which a population depends when there really is no standard of judgment which a judge must comply with. I.e., there is no standard of judgment for right and wrong, or we are back to literacy. No illiterate species can know justice. Justice, people actually believe, is the opinion of individuals, and not fact.

Who is to say what is right or wrong? Has been on the lips of mankind from the start. You do not realize that judgment is the power of language made manifest in our Grammar Matrix. You were never taught it, it has never been demonstrated to you. Yet, when someone tries to demonstrate it, you cry, I can judge for myself, I do not need to know how to be true.

Fuck your whining.

Apparently in New Zealand, under the Criminal Procedure Act of 2011, category 2 offences (punishable by less than two years in prison) are held before a judge, with full jury trial available only for crimes with lengthier punishments.

Do we have anybody here who knows how that turned out?

Look on the bright side.

Juries are increasingly filled with Muslims, colored people and "wokies".

Do you really want them rather than good English judges?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 2:09 pm Look on the bright side.

Juries are increasingly filled with Muslims, colored people and "wokies".

Do you really want them rather than good English judges?

Another fucking idiot claiming that there is such a thing as a good English Judge, talk about being a racist faggot.

RickLewis wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 11:52 am It's pretty astonishing. When I first saw a mention of this proposal about a month ago, I assumed it was fake news. Apparently not. But as your posting suggests, this is not some small cost-saving reform. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers is one of the main foundations of the UK legal system.

I feel a sense of outrage, but so what? I think what we need are reasons and arguments, not emotions. What are the main arguments for retaining jury trials? What are the main arguments for abolishing them (except for very serious cases)?

first: I'm sure it comes down to money...

second: even though y'all live on an island, I'm fairly sure that less than 10% even own a boat...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:22 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 11:52 am It's pretty astonishing. When I first saw a mention of this proposal about a month ago, I assumed it was fake news. Apparently not. But as your posting suggests, this is not some small cost-saving reform. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers is one of the main foundations of the UK legal system.

I feel a sense of outrage, but so what? I think what we need are reasons and arguments, not emotions. What are the main arguments for retaining jury trials? What are the main arguments for abolishing them (except for very serious cases)?

first: I'm sure it comes down to money...

second: even though y'all live on an island, I'm fairly sure that less than 10% even own a boat...

-Imp

Ya'll know, boat and vote rhyme.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:25 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:22 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 11:52 am It's pretty astonishing. When I first saw a mention of this proposal about a month ago, I assumed it was fake news. Apparently not. But as your posting suggests, this is not some small cost-saving reform. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers is one of the main foundations of the UK legal system.

I feel a sense of outrage, but so what? I think what we need are reasons and arguments, not emotions. What are the main arguments for retaining jury trials? What are the main arguments for abolishing them (except for very serious cases)?

first: I'm sure it comes down to money...

second: even though y'all live on an island, I'm fairly sure that less than 10% even own a boat...

-Imp

Ya'll know, boat and vote rhyme.

yep... y'all know pier and park it don't

yeehaw

-Imp

Faggots shall not be tolerated on this site unless they are very tasty and served with a pint of real ale.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:42 pm Faggots shall not be tolerated on this site unless they are very tasty and served with a pint of real ale.

None of that calorie free shit.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 2:09 pm Look on the bright side.

Juries are increasingly filled with Muslims, colored people and "wokies".

Do you really want them rather than good English judges?

We already know that wokies are the most racist wankers around today. It's why they are constantly deflecting and virtue-signalling. No need to remind us.