Recently, many civil libertarians have been alarmed by legal changes in England restricting the media, free speech, prosecuting insults against religion, and other rollbacks. Now, the Lord Chief Justice has ruled that criminal trials no longer require a jury for the first time in England and Wales.
In the United States, the right to a jury does not apply to minor cases, generally crimes punished by less than a year in jail.
The English case however involved an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004. The trial judge decided that there was a risk of jury tampering and the appellate court agreed that the cost of protecting jurors from influence was prohibitive and could not protect the jurors from influence from family members.
It is a very disturbing rationale that would allow the denial of a jury in a great array of cases. Obviously, there is no complete protection against influence by family members short of sequestration.
Lord Judge, sitting with Lord Justice Goldring and Mr. Justice McCombe said that the case concerned “very serious criminal activity” and had been tried three times. The panel relied on the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow a bench trial “[w]here . . . judge assimilates all the functions of the jury with his own unchanged judicial responsibilities.”
For the full story, click here
Mike Spindell: And let us not forget the Murdochian Media Effect. The British are fully under Big Brother’s control. I knew they were spineless but now I realize Brits have been seriously dumbed down, as well.
Tony Blair was their own version of the Neo Con authority figure. Now they’re subverted and don’t even care, let alone realize their predicament.Times will change things and one day the freedoms surrendered will be needed more than ever, but won’t be there. End of that civilization.
Grow a pair, British intellectuals…if you exist in Great Britain.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/dick_tater_with_joe_mole_and_tony_tool.html
lottakatz as to AY:
The biggest single problem I see in Washington including SCOTUS is that even if it is written in the Constitution it doesn’t matter.
********************
That is what is most alarming. We would have none of the things that arose before and after the Civil Rights Legislation. Things that are all encompassing expectations such Highways, Wages, Equality (whatever that may be).
I think that the court is saying is that even if it is written in the constitution we need respect for the finality of judgment. Even if we are wrong. Its over. And I am sorry, if someone is going to die the state afforded them the minimal due process.
For what it’s worth, BabyBarista has put in his 2 cents:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/baby_barista/2009/06/year-3-week-39-a-sad-day.html
AY: “And with the current make up of the court and the less than desirable decisions, it appears that unless it is written in the constitution it don’t exist. Hence bar of the use of Parole Evidence”
The biggest single problem I see in Washington including SCOTUS is that even if it is written in the Constitution it doesn’t matter.
mespo727272 as to AY:
Not sure what you mean, but Magna Carta was incorporated into the unwritten English Constitution until various legislative enactments repealed many of its provisions. In the US, it is revered* as an initial memorialization of the common law, and some of its articles are incorporated into the spirit of our own “Great Charter,” the Constitution. As you well know, the Constitution does not contain all of our law so your parole evidence theory won’t fit since our social contract is contained in many written, as well as unwritten, notions of fairness and justice. Only a completely integrated written agreement operates as a bar to parole evidence.
See I do know some contract law. 🙂
*In fact, the bottom panel on the right side of the great bronze entrance door of the SCOTUS building depicts the sealing of the Great Charter by King John.
*****************************************
And with the current make up of the court and the less than desirable decisions, it appears that unless it is written in the constitution it don’t exist. Hence bar of the use of Parole Evidence.
AY:
Not sure what you mean, but Magna Carta was incorporated into the unwritten English Constitution until various legislative enactments repealed many of its provisions. In the US, it is revered* as an initial memorialization of the common law, and some of its articles are incorporated into the spirit of our own “Great Charter,” the Constitution. As you well know, the Constitution does not contain all of our law so your parole evidence theory won’t fit since our social contract is contained in many written, as well as unwritten, notions of fairness and justice. Only a completely integrated written agreement operates as a bar to parole evidence.
See I do know some contract law. 🙂
*In fact, the bottom panel on the right side of the great bronze entrance door of the SCOTUS building depicts the sealing of the Great Charter by King John.
Mespo,
By not incorporating the Magna Carta into the Const it was excluded. Let us take the Cranston or Williston approach to the Document in Question.
No Parol Evidence shall be introduced. Sorry guys. You lose.
Has the home of the Magna Carta become once again perfidious Albion? Thank you Tony Blair and the New Labor Party.
Magna Carta, Article 39 (1215)
What’s to worry? It’s just a –damn piece of paper. Oh, wait, that was our Constitution wasn’t it?
“In the United States, the right to a jury does not apply to minor cases, generally crimes punished by less than a year in jail.”
“Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae.” (“No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.”)
Magna Carta, Article 39 (1215)
My, how well we have evolved.
We don’t need no stinkin’ terrorists to take away our freedoms. That’s “mission accomplished” by our respective govts.