Eater Sundae Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I'm sure some legal experts would agree but here's the downside. When the powers that be decide that people are too dumb to be able to deliver a proper verdict then sooner or later these powers may one day decide that voters are too dumb to be able to decide which political party is best suited to run the country and you know what the alternative to that is. The trial by 3 judges kind of system may work in advanced European countries such as Germany or France who have never had the jury system but that is no guarantee that it would work anywhere else and the trial by judge system is an easy target for corruption. Judging from the opinions of most on this thread the trial by judges in Mahagri's case didnt work either Anyway the jury system used in the US came from England and comes under "We the people" Democracy isnt perfect and neither is the jury system and neither system ever will be but as Churchill once said about democracy and this could apply to the jury system "It's the best thing we have until something bettter comes along" or words similar to that Re my bold: There have been cases in the UK where trial has been by judges because of risk of corruption of juries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandie Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 First let me say I truly regret the loss of your brother if that's worth anything to you. I'm sure when he decided to serve his country he must have considered the possibilities of eventually having to go into harms way as any serving soldier in any army in the world must also consider before donning the uniform. It doesnt make any sense to equate Lockerbie with what goes on in Iraq or Afghanistan which is totally irrelevent to this discussion. I dont like these wars either but if you must blame someone then blame Tony Blair. He got you into it and not George Bush who I blame as he was my president. I assume Tony Blair had a mind of his own when he decided to get involved I feel no wrong in criticizing the Scottish judicail system as it pertains to the release of Mahagri. There was something wrong about it from the start and since nearly all of the victims were US citizens the refusal of the Scottish parliament to answer any questions placed by Obama just reinforces the feeling that they have something to hide. You dont speak for Scotland either as I'm sure there are plenty of Scots who think the release was wrong so quit acting like you do. You obviously didnt like the idea of me putting my two centsworth into this discussion but that is my right and plenty of members of this forum have no hesitataion in doing the same when it deals with things that happen in America and most of the posts are negative too I might add. Thank you for your reply and some of the content is noted, but I will ask the question once more, do you live in the UK, because I dont think so. If you live here you have the right to comment on our justice if not then butt out. You seem to be pro American and dont give 2 hoots about the UK and you are anty Scotland. As i live and work in Scotland I feel that I have a better fealing of what the Scotish think. A week in Edinburgh does not make you an expert (a drip under pressure) My gut feeling is you are pro American and if you are stop having a go at the UK. The guy was released end of story, Obama is on a whitch hunt as with BP are you stupid mid term elections are on the way. You talk the biggest load of rubish that I have seen on this forum and my guess is you live in the states. You sir are a turncoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Re my bold: There have been cases in the UK where trial has been by judges because of risk of corruption of juries. In my opinion judges are far more open to corruption than twelve people who are total strangers to each other. Judges exercise a considerable amount of power in the course of their duties just as politicians do. I've sat on several juries in the US over many years and some of the disciplines required of a juror are:: A juror during the selection process nor any time afterwards will not give his name and address to the DA, defence counsel nor any other court official or other member of the jury. He or she is assigned a juror number and is only addressed by that number throughout the trial A juror at no time will discuss the case with another juror, a member of his or her family or the media at any time during the trial. A juror is required to report any other juror who attempts to discuss the case or is approached by either the DA or defense counsel unless it is in court as part of the trial Any violations of the above can be cause for criminal prosecution fine and imprisonment or both Jury duty summonses are sent by mail and if no reponse is received from the person a second notice is sent. If that is also ignored there is a fine of 1500 dollars and possible imprionment for contempt of court Given the above and the penalties involved I doubt very few ordinary people would normally be foolsih enough to get themselves sent to prison and have a criminal record against their name for the rest of their lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Re my bold: There have been cases in the UK where trial has been by judges because of risk of corruption of juries. In my opinion judges are far more open to corruption than twelve people who are total strangers to each other. Judges exercise a considerable amount of power in the course of their duties just as politicians do. I've sat on several juries in the US over many years and some of the disciplines required of a juror are:: A juror during the selection process nor any time afterwards will NOT give his name and address to the DA, defence counsel nor any other court official or other member of the jury He or she is assigned a juror number and is only addressed by that number throughout the trial A juror at no time will discuss the case with another juror, a member of his or her own family or the media at any time during the trial. A juror is required to report any other juror who attempts to discuss the case or is approached by either the DA or defense counsel outside of the court Any violations of the above can be cause for criminal prosecution fine and imprisonment or both Jury duty summonses are sent by mail and if no reponse is received from the person a second notice is sent. If that is also ignored there is a fine of 1500 dollars and possible imprionment for contempt of court Given the above and the penalties involved I doubt very few ordinary people would normally be foolsih enough to get themselves sent to prison for an act of corruption and have a criminal record against their name for the rest of their lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Thank you for your reply and some of the content is noted, but I will ask the question once more, do you live in the UK, because I dont think so. If you live here you have the right to comment on our justice if not then butt out. You seem to be pro American and dont give 2 hoots about the UK and you are anty Scotland. As i live and work in Scotland I feel that I have a better fealing of what the Scotish think. A week in Edinburgh does not make you an expert (a drip under pressure) My gut feeling is you are pro American and if you are stop having a go at the UK. The guy was released end of story, Obama is on a whitch hunt as with BP are you stupid mid term elections are on the way. You talk the biggest load of rubish that I have seen on this forum and my guess is you live in the states. You sir are a turncoat. Yes I live in the US and have done so for 45 years.. Since you took it on yourself to criticize Obama for requesting information on the release of Mahagri and then go on a rant about something as irrelevent as the Iraq war then I WILL butt in with my opinion so get used to it. Is criticizing Scottish law by any others than Scots people against Scottish law also? You need to learn what a forum is about and accept the arguments from others without getting all steamed up. Like I said you do not speak for Scotland even if you are a wannabe Scotsman. I am no turncoat or traitor. I moved to the US to try to live a better life after growing up in the austerity of post war Britain and I served two years in Her Majesty's Army. You chose to start a rant thread about the US so stop whining when the replies come back. If you cant take it dont serve it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Despite all the arguing over this subject from 2 different sides, it seems that the crucial factors are being overlooked. Mahagri has been released - some think rightly & others wrongly (personally, I didn't agree with his release at the time, and still don't, although there seems to be doubt about his guilt) but, he was released under Scottish Law according to their ideals and principles. No country, not even the US, can expect to be allowed to interfere in another countries legal system nor to make demands relating to another countries legal system. There is now, no way that he can be returned to jail so, what exactly, do the US hope to achieve by this never ending tirade as Scotland has made it quite clear that the decision was theirs alone, guided by their principles of justice and they do not have to explain themselves any further. It does leave an unsatisfactory conclusion as do so many things under English, US or almost every other countries laws but, as always, we must live with it. Cameron's, or any other English politician's beliefs on this subject matter no more than mine. Amazing how they are never so certain as to what they think until it's all over. Anyone can understand how very unpalatable this is for all the people of any nationality who lost their loved ones at Lockerbie (I am sure I would be beside myself with rage) but nothing more can be done in the same way that we can't undo what happened to vast numbers of innocent Iraqi's and even a lot of shouting from the world's most powerful nation cannot alter that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 In my opinion judges are far more open to corruption than twelve people who are total strangers to each other. Judges exercise a considerable amount of power in the course of their duties just as politicians do. I've sat on several juries in the US over many years and some of the disciplines required of a juror are:: A juror during the selection process nor any time afterwards will NOT give his name and address to the DA, defence counsel nor any other court official or other member of the jury He or she is assigned a juror number and is only addressed by that number throughout the trial A juror at no time will discuss the case with another juror, a member of his or her own family or the media at any time during the trial. A juror is required to report any other juror who attempts to discuss the case or is approached by either the DA or defense counsel outside of the court Any violations of the above can be cause for criminal prosecution fine and imprisonment or both Jury duty summonses are sent by mail and if no reponse is received from the person a second notice is sent. If that is also ignored there is a fine of 1500 dollars and possible imprionment for contempt of court Given the above and the penalties involved I doubt very few ordinary people would normally be foolsih enough to get themselves sent to prison for an act of corruption and have a criminal record against their name for the rest of their lives The situations I have in mind (of resorting to trials without juries) are more to do with the likelihood of the jurors being threatened/intimidated than with them being bribed. If jurors are threatened, they are in an impossible situation. Risk of prison by fixing their decision, or risk of injury or worse (to them or their loved ones). Not a great choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Despite all the arguing over this subject from 2 different sides, it seems that the crucial factors are being overlooked. Mahagri has been released - some think rightly & others wrongly (personally, I didn't agree with his release at the time, and still don't, although there seems to be doubt about his guilt) but, he was released under Scottish Law according to their ideals and principles. No country, not even the US, can expect to be allowed to interfere in another countries legal system nor to make demands relating to another countries legal system. There is now, no way that he can be returned to jail so, what exactly, do the US hope to achieve by this never ending tirade as Scotland has made it quite clear that the decision was theirs alone, guided by their principles of justice and they do not have to explain themselves any further. It does leave an unsatisfactory conclusion as do so many things under English, US or almost every other countries laws but, as always, we must live with it. Cameron's, or any other English politician's beliefs on this subject matter no more than mine. Amazing how they are never so certain as to what they think until it's all over. Anyone can understand how very unpalatable this is for all the people of any nationality who lost their loved ones at Lockerbie (I am sure I would be beside myself with rage) but nothing more can be done in the same way that we can't undo what happened to vast numbers of innocent Iraqi's and even a lot of shouting from the world's most powerful nation cannot alter that. I really dont know why Iraq keeps cropping up in this discussion. Most of the deaths there were caused by the war between the Sunnis and the Shiites and now those fools want the US to stay another ten years as they claim that the Iraqi security forces wont be able to cope until then Thankfully I dont think Obama will buy that crock and all troops will be finally out by end of 2011. After that they can get somebody else like Saddam in charge and serves them right. They had all the money and all the backing in the world to help them recover and become something of a modern nation and they blew it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 The situations I have in mind (of resorting to trials without juries) are more to do with the likelihood of the jurors being threatened/intimidated than with them being bribed. If jurors are threatened, they are in an impossible situation. Risk of prison by fixing their decision, or risk of injury or worse (to them or their loved ones). Not a great choice. I dont know about the UK but the scenario isnt here in my part of the world to be threatened. No one except court records know your name or where you live. I must have sat on around ten juries in my years here, three of them involving gang crimes, one of which was murder and no one on any of the juries had the experience of being threatened. There are armed County Sheriff's deputies around the courts at all times and in instances where a very high profile murder trial is held jurors are sequestered in a hotel for the duration of the trial and escorted to shuttle vehicles while traveling between court and hotel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.