northbank123 wrote:ATID I've shadowed barristers and marshalled judges at High Court and Court of Appeal level - the judge who I marshalled in the latter case was a fairly frail man in his 70s but he was probably the sharpest person I've ever met who was unbelievably passionate about justice and symbolised integrity. And generally those are the sorts of people the judiciary is made up of. But - as is inevitably the case with choosing from such a narrow (privileged) demographic - there is a small minority of liabilities, particularly the lower down you go. The world of criminal law sadly attracts a lot of weirdos and wankers, many of whom will practise as a barrister and seek to join the judiciary in some format after an unsatisfying career. And even in my limited interaction with this world I've met a number.
You think people don't get a fair trial by jury and the requirement to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" is non-existent? You stick all the power in the hands of a cynical toff who has spent the last few decades of his life dealing with lowlifes and scumbags day in day out, then we'll see how even-handed they are and how strictly they adhere to the standard of proof. You don't think judges are going to be hugely biased depending on whether or not they generally did defence or prosecution work?
The acquittal rate is nearly 50% higher in Crown Court cases than those tried by magistrates - despite far more CPS time, effort and money being invested in the former - which on a fundamental level puts a question mark against jurors being far more willing to allow stereotypes and prejudices to cloud their decision-making. There are very few accusations that will draw more social stigma than rape, but you tell rape victims that despite the horrifically low conviction rate, people are prejudiced against defendants.
Have you witnessed a Crown Court trial from start to finish? Forget media portrayals, they are bloody tedious affairs, not least because counsel and the judge spend hours (and sometimes days) reminding the jury exactly what the level of proof required is and exactly what they can and can't do. And that's in an ordinary case, never mind one that is reported in the media. Also could you imagine knowing that getting a particular judge will massively increase or decrease your chances of conviction before you've even set foot in the courtroom? At least juries are random, and we don't have the circus they have in America for example with jury selection.
Quite probably the biggest preparation area for most criminal trials is admissibility of evidence but also prior convictions, with the judge being the safeguard deciding whether or not it would unfairly prejudice the defendant. They will absolutely hammer anybody committing contempt of court, they imprisoned a foreign academic for Googling the defendant and mentioning prior allegations in the deliberation room. There are comprehensive review options if the judge allows the jury to be prejudiced, or if either makes a decision based on weighing up factors incorrectly amongst other things.
It's not perfect but it's so easy to be casually cynical towards it.
I never said that trial by jury is totally unfair. Given the choice between the cynical old toff or a jury of laypersons then it of course is going to be the latter but that does not mean that all judges are cynical old farts who hate everyone without a degree.
I would argue magistrate judges are more trigger happy than most judges
Re the low conviction on rape indictments, have you ever witnessed a defence council's questions to the victims?
Yes, I have been to several crown court cases and frequent around courts as it does nothing but benefit me in doing so. Upon one visit the defence council for a young woman indicted on a drugs/drug smuggling charge made a formal plea to the judge (a miserable woman) to spare the jury from knowing that his client had been previously incarcerated in America for the same offence (not the exact same, dozy cow did it again) a few years ago.
I do agree that a person should be judged on what he is on trial for in the present rather than previous criminal offences. That is one good thing about the criminal justice system in England.
I much prefer civil law in its entirety.