...is writ in
these sixteen words:
Inability to understand the written language is no bar to serving on a jury, officials said.
And not
just written, either:
Even those who cannot easily understand the spoken word could be asked to sit in judgment on those accused of crime.
This is, of course, and inevitable result of putting that utter cretin Clarke in charge of justice.
Criminologists and MPs said yesterday that they were worried about inclusion of those with poor English on juries.
Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, said: ‘The jury system is founded on the idea that we are all tried by our peers. If your peers cannot speak English, or read or write it properly, how can you have confidence you will get justice?’
Working as intended, Douglas, working as intended...
He added: ‘Ministers in successive governments have stated that they are going to curb the effects of multiculturalism, but the bureaucrats keep on putting forms and documents into dozens of languages.’
Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, said: ‘If you can’t even read the letter summoning you for jury service, you are not fit to be a juror.’
Hush, David, your betters are working towards a new world order. Your input is unwelcome...
The spokesman added: ‘If a juror attends court and there is a doubt about their capacity to act effectively due to insufficient understanding of English, the matter will be brought to the attention of the trial judge who could excuse them. In more complex cases, such as fraud cases, where jurors may be expected to read documents as part of the evidence, an assessment of whether the juror can serve on that trial will be made at court with judicial input.’
Sure. We can trust civil servants to challenge people, can't we? There's plenty of evidence that
common sense will reign instead of paralysis in the face of fear of offence, isn't there?
21 comments:
Justice should not only be blind it seems? In fact, it should be seen to be believed.
Sometimes I despair
This has been an issue for years; it's about time we had it out in the open. Never mind multiculturalism; we have plenty of natives whose levels of comprehension and literacy would have disgraced the 19th, never mind the 21st century.
The quickest way would for lawyers to begin to challenge convictions on the grounds that the jury itself was incapable of understanding the defence's argument, violating the right to a fair trial.
Hark to the sound of clashing rights. If push comes to shove the right to a fair trial trumps the right of any juror - or any judge, see the Pinochet case - to sit in judgment when even the appearance of bias is enough undermine faith in the jury system.
Oh wait....
Isn't it basically a job-creation scheme for lawyers handling appeals?
I once served on a jury. It scared the life out of me.
Personally, I think they're onto to something here, Julia.
During my last stint of jury service in early 2008, those of the cream of Sarf London with whom I deliberated and/or sat around in the jurors' assembly area waiting for something to happen could all more-or-less read and write English.
On the other hand, 90% of the defendants would clearly have been much happier with a different language.
Perhaps the working language should reflect the type of case. All 419 and passport fraud, for example, could be heard in Yoruba.
Speed things up no end.
"I once served on a jury. It scared the life out of me."
It's like being kicked in the balls; you get used to it after a while. As the News of the World used to say, "All human life is there".
My first period of jury service was a single murder and rape case. They didn't bother charging the geezer with the armed robbery which was the context for these two offences.
Cases I was sworn for on my second period of jury service included: robbery, incestuous rape of a minor, statutory rape at school and knife-carrying. (I use the weasel phrase "sworn for" because two of these cases had to be restarted with a fresh jury due to what in legal jargon are called "procedural fuck-ups".)
At the end of two weeks I was quite enjoying it and wouldn't mind another go.
There is another argument.
If my right of jury trial is to be tried by my peers, then someone who cannot read or write is not one of my peers. Just like a Lord insisting on being tried before the House of Lords so that he is (literally) tried by his peers, so might I insist on being tried in front of a jury of educated middle-class libertarian-minded individualists.
I'm sure that will work. If not, I can assert bias in the minds of the jury whose intelligence I will have just insulted (if they understood a word of what I was saying...).
Okay, on the one hand it's the job of both barristers to break things down into something the jury can understand. That's part of the 'proving the case' bit and if they don't do it they don't win, although it does allow for a pretty broad definition of 'peers' as it would include everyone from never employed chavscum to churchgoing retired Brigadier. But reasonable conversational English really should be the minimum expected. It's one thing to get a translator if the defendant needs it, and I'd say necessary for a fair trial that he understands what the jury are being told. But to allow for the possibility of the jurors, potentially all of them, to have translators too is just bloody silly and I reckon going to lead to more appeals.
All agreed, but... hang on a mo...
Maybe our leaders finally want something back from all those immigrants who come here to sponge off the system. So, what this is saying is that the system asks something in return; you aren't here just to receive handouts and ignore the British way of life.
If you come here, you take the shit with the sugar, as it were.
(Jury service to date: 1 found guilty, 1 innocent. I have done my bit and would prefer not to do any more but need others to step in and do their share.)
.....no comment.....just further into Ruin's bowels and the drip drip drip of diarrheaic arse water. What's the bloody point?
What's the problem? We already have Doctors, nurses, teachers etc that don't understand, speak or write English very well. So why not jurors?
"We can trust civil servants to challenge people, can't we"?
I've amended that slightly for you Julia ..
"We can always trust civil servants to consistently challenge the wrong people, can't we" ?
I have both summoned and sat on a jury.
During my stint as an executive in the lord Chancellor's Office, it was generally assumed that we ended up with below par Juries because it was relatively easy for the smart and the employed to get excusal or exemption.
This is probably still the attitude.
Juries are seen as a hinderance these days, and Judges and administrators would much prefer to dispense with them altogether and adopt the European system of Investigating magistrates etc.
So this looks like deliberate policy to me. Pack juries with illiterates and English as a second (maybe!) language speakers. Declare the "System" is not working, and use it as an excuse to ditch Juries altogether.
Game over for Justice, as evinced by the in Camera horror of the Family Courts which operate this way already, and produce gagging orders if anyone has the temerity to release information to the press, public or indeed anyone at all.
Cheers RAB; picked me right up there and i'm sure fellow parishioners can sleep soundly too!
It's only fair as most defendants don't speak English either.
Jaded
RAB, that's depressingly plausible.
I think we are going to have to kill the bastards and take our country back. Trying to make them see sense will never work because they are dead from the neck up and distilled treason down to the bone.
The problem with using immigrants for jury service is that you might unwittingly employ a criminal.
Justice is already thin on the ground. This will make it worse.
"Sometimes I despair"
Only sometimes? Lately, I seem to be doing it a lot!
"This has been an issue for years; it's about time we had it out in the open. Never mind multiculturalism; we have plenty of natives whose levels of comprehension and literacy would have disgraced the 19th, never mind the 21st century."
Agreed. But I suspect it's 'working as intended'...
"As the News of the World used to say, "All human life is there"."
I've never been selected. I'm jealous!
"There is another argument.
If my right of jury trial is to be tried by my peers, then someone who cannot read or write is not one of my peers. "
Now there's an idea...
"It's one thing to get a translator if the defendant needs it, and I'd say necessary for a fair trial that he understands what the jury are being told. But to allow for the possibility of the jurors, potentially all of them, to have translators too is just bloody silly and I reckon going to lead to more appeals."
Macheath is on to something, then..? ;)
"We already have Doctors, nurses, teachers etc that don't understand, speak or write English very well. So why not jurors?"
Good point!
"Game over for Justice, as evinced by the in Camera horror of the Family Courts which operate this way already, and produce gagging orders if anyone has the temerity to release information to the press, public or indeed anyone at all."
That's a hugely depressing thought, but all the signs do seem to point that way, don't they?
Post a Comment