Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Basic point: why should the distribution of the general population amongst any categories (male/female, white/brown/black, etc) have to correlate with that in any specific workforce? Simply pick the people best able to do the jobs in question, irrespective of whether a person is from an over-represented or under-represented category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Basic point: why should the distribution of the general population amongst any categories (male/female, white/brown/black, etc) have to correlate with that in any specific workforce? Simply pick the people best able to do the jobs in question, irrespective of whether a person is from an over-represented or under-represented category. Do you think the judiciary reflects the "best people for the job" and have an understanding of the common man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Do you think the judiciary reflects the "best people for the job" and have an understanding of the common man? I've no idea what sort of person you mean by 'the common man'. Everyone is different, surely? But, yes- the UK judiciary is far preferable to almost any other country's. Judges are impartial, incorruptible, not people who've only ever been judges (as each has to start as a barrister or solicitor- in which capacity they obviously deal with clients of many types), and better-placed to resolve disputes than any other system would yield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Rather simplistic but I am still a believer that a job should be done by whoever is best suited to do it, it shouldn't matter what colour their skin is. If they meet the entry criteria & pass the exams get them in, but we know sadly that life is not that simple, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Political parties change the laws of the state according to their own political preferences. That's what political parties do. Every political party wants to change the rules of the state to match their own rules. Otherwise it would be a bit pointless them standing for office. Pressure groups do likewise. You do realise your post is in favour of conservatism i.e. keep things as they are for the sake of it? Who is talking about political parties? I know I wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I've no idea what sort of person you mean by 'the common man'. Everyone is different, surely? Well the common complaint about judges is that they're 'out of touch', which whether it's true or not will always be an accusation made against them since they come from such a rarified section of society. But, yes- the UK judiciary is far preferable to almost any other country's. Judges are impartial, incorruptible, not people who've only ever been judges (as each has to start as a barrister or solicitor- in which capacity they obviously deal with clients of many types), and better-placed to resolve disputes than any other system would yield. Interesting point, but the very system you champion precludes a large section of society, it's not by accident that the majority of law graduates choose to train as solicitors rather than barristers. The route to being a barrister is dependent on many things as you know-patronage, pupillage and being in a position to subsidise your existence until you start earning a living. The last time I looked the course fees for the BVC were around £20k for one year, at least in the old days you had a prospect of getting a grant to do Bar Finals. Sponsorship for gifted pupils is not commonplace. ---------- Post added 23-01-2013 at 18:39 ---------- Basic point: why should the distribution of the general population amongst any categories (male/female, white/brown/black, etc) have to correlate with that in any specific workforce? Incidentally, I believe the makeup of a workforce is only relevant when that workforce is serving the people as a public body and the people have an expectation of equitable treatment by their peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Well the common complaint about judges is that they're 'out of touch', which whether it's true or not will always be an accusation made against them since they come from such a rarified section of society. Most court cases are in magistrate’s courts and magistrates are just ordinary people that also do other jobs, even you and I can apply to be a magistrate. A crown court judge is only there to make sure the law is applied correctly; it’s a jury of ordinary people that decide guilt or innocent. So it makes no difference at all if the judge comes from a privileged background providing they know the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Most court cases are in magistrate’s courts and magistrates are just ordinary people that also do other jobs, even you and I can apply to be a magistrate. Great example, and the Lord Chancellors Department spend a fortune every year encouraging 'ordinary people' to apply to be magistrates, even though the annual intake is relatively fixed they want to draw from as large a selection pool as possible-this is precisely the point I've been trying to make and you demonstrate it beautifully in your post! A crown court judge is only there to make sure the law is applied correctly; it’s a jury of ordinary people that decide guilt or innocent. So it makes no difference at all if the judge comes from a privileged background providing they know the law. No, he/she is also there to perform the sentencing exercise, it's that process which troubles many Daily Mail readers..and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Great example, and the Lord Chancellors Department spend a fortune every year encouraging 'ordinary people' to apply to be magistrates, even though the annual intake is relatively fixed they want to draw from as large a selection pool as possible-this is precisely the point I've been trying to make and you demonstrate it beautifully in your post! No, he/she is also there to perform the sentencing exercise, it's that process which troubles many Daily Mail readers..and others. These are the requirements and there's no mention of what colour, sex, or ethnic group they should come from. No formal qualifications are required but magistrates need intelligence, common sense, integrity and the capacity to act fairly. Yes judges perform the sentencing exercise following a set of sentencing rules; I’m not sure why their background should be an issue to anyone as long as they follow the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I'm not usually in favour of positive discrimination, because it's still discrimination. It could be useful in the police though, they should reflect the community they serve. A bit of positive discrimination should encourage more applicants from minorities & after a while it wont be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.