Crosswords1 min ago
Should terrorist trials be handled with juries?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8243176.stm
Three defendents had guilty verdicts against them but only after a retrial. There are good reasons why evidence is not given during a trial as it could harm the security services in publishing secretive data. The first trial the e-mails between the plotters were not used and so the case fell through. Also the jury could feel intimidated in giving the guilty verdict and any subsequent retaliation. As it is the jury found many of the defendents innocent which would not have been the case otherwise.
Three defendents had guilty verdicts against them but only after a retrial. There are good reasons why evidence is not given during a trial as it could harm the security services in publishing secretive data. The first trial the e-mails between the plotters were not used and so the case fell through. Also the jury could feel intimidated in giving the guilty verdict and any subsequent retaliation. As it is the jury found many of the defendents innocent which would not have been the case otherwise.
The problem with dispensing with trials for terrorist suspects is that it rather plays into the hands of the terrorists.
It is easy to portray those sentenced as innocent victims of state persecution and that they are being imprisoned without a fair trial.
It would effectively give terrorists special political status by not treating them as other criminals
It is only a small step on from internment and that was the greatest gift any government made to the IRA.
It would me a massive admission of defeat
It is easy to portray those sentenced as innocent victims of state persecution and that they are being imprisoned without a fair trial.
It would effectively give terrorists special political status by not treating them as other criminals
It is only a small step on from internment and that was the greatest gift any government made to the IRA.
It would me a massive admission of defeat
“As it is the jury found many of the defendents innocent which would not have been the case otherwise.”
Otherwise than what? Other than if they had been tried by a jury, do you mean?
First of all, you simply don't know if that would be the case. But, more importantly, a trial by jury is the cornerstone of British justice. The prosecution has to bring evidence that is sufficient to convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt, and that evidence has to be simple enough for “the man in the street” (for that’s what jurors are) to understand.
The alternative you are proposing is, I suppose, trial by judge or judges alone. Criminal trials are already seen not so much as quests for the truth but as intellectual challenges by highly trained and specialist legal professionals. They often have to be reminded by judges and magistrates that their duty is to convince the tribunal beyond doubt in a manner that they can understand. Removing the man in the street from that tribunal means that trials will simply descend into a series of unintelligible legal arguments.
Then what next? “Well, most of the evidence we have is so secret that we cannot disclose it, even to a judge. This matter is so serious that we cannot possibly discontinue the prosecution so we’d better just record a conviction and proceed to sentence”
With some very rare exceptions, trial by judge alone is not the way things are done in the UK. Those accused of serious crimes are entitled to have the evidence against them put publicly before a panel of their peers. If the evidence is not available or not to be made public, then no prosecution should succeed.
Otherwise than what? Other than if they had been tried by a jury, do you mean?
First of all, you simply don't know if that would be the case. But, more importantly, a trial by jury is the cornerstone of British justice. The prosecution has to bring evidence that is sufficient to convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt, and that evidence has to be simple enough for “the man in the street” (for that’s what jurors are) to understand.
The alternative you are proposing is, I suppose, trial by judge or judges alone. Criminal trials are already seen not so much as quests for the truth but as intellectual challenges by highly trained and specialist legal professionals. They often have to be reminded by judges and magistrates that their duty is to convince the tribunal beyond doubt in a manner that they can understand. Removing the man in the street from that tribunal means that trials will simply descend into a series of unintelligible legal arguments.
Then what next? “Well, most of the evidence we have is so secret that we cannot disclose it, even to a judge. This matter is so serious that we cannot possibly discontinue the prosecution so we’d better just record a conviction and proceed to sentence”
With some very rare exceptions, trial by judge alone is not the way things are done in the UK. Those accused of serious crimes are entitled to have the evidence against them put publicly before a panel of their peers. If the evidence is not available or not to be made public, then no prosecution should succeed.
Trials without juries are always unsatifactory and lead to many suspicions of unfairness.
The Libyan Al Megrahi faced such a trial, justice being dispensed by 3 judges rather than a jury. In that case, it was also unfortunate that they almost certainly gave the wrong verdict.
In the trial of the plane bombers, the crucial problem the first jury faced was the Americans, for whatever reason, were not forthcoming with vital evidence which they possessed. You cannot really blame the jury for that, and it is a large leap from that to say trials of this nature should not be held in front of juries.
In the end, the email evidence was collected from a different source, making the original decision not to cooperate and risking guilty men being set free, a very silly decision.
The Libyan Al Megrahi faced such a trial, justice being dispensed by 3 judges rather than a jury. In that case, it was also unfortunate that they almost certainly gave the wrong verdict.
In the trial of the plane bombers, the crucial problem the first jury faced was the Americans, for whatever reason, were not forthcoming with vital evidence which they possessed. You cannot really blame the jury for that, and it is a large leap from that to say trials of this nature should not be held in front of juries.
In the end, the email evidence was collected from a different source, making the original decision not to cooperate and risking guilty men being set free, a very silly decision.
Although there are good points for not having juries, in particular the posibility of revenge, we cannot allow terrorists any special exceptions to our justice system. Remember that say in the point on revenge this could also apply to gangland murderers, perhaps even more so.
What we perhaps should do is have certain trials, not just terrorist ones, where the jury cannot be seen and anonymity is guranteed.
That and of course lock them up for good when found guilty. I see the white supremist nut could be out in 6 years if a bunch of liberals are reviewing his case in 6yrs time, rediculous.
What we perhaps should do is have certain trials, not just terrorist ones, where the jury cannot be seen and anonymity is guranteed.
That and of course lock them up for good when found guilty. I see the white supremist nut could be out in 6 years if a bunch of liberals are reviewing his case in 6yrs time, rediculous.
-- answer removed --
Yes jake it is remarkable. And it shows that most of us are fair minded towards people who have been shown to have planned even the most vile of atrocities against us.
Even I, yes even I who have sometimes been viewed as one of the “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” brigade believe that, for all its faults, our current justice system has a lot to be said for it. And again, even I would not want to see anybody locked up without having had a full, fair and open trial conducted in accordance with current laws and rules.
Some people do commit crimes which seem to be outside the remit of our criminal justice system. However, so long as they are being judged under that system, it should be the same for everybody.
Hang ‘em and flog ’em, by all means. But only after they’ve been convicted by means of a fair trial!
Even I, yes even I who have sometimes been viewed as one of the “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” brigade believe that, for all its faults, our current justice system has a lot to be said for it. And again, even I would not want to see anybody locked up without having had a full, fair and open trial conducted in accordance with current laws and rules.
Some people do commit crimes which seem to be outside the remit of our criminal justice system. However, so long as they are being judged under that system, it should be the same for everybody.
Hang ‘em and flog ’em, by all means. But only after they’ve been convicted by means of a fair trial!
The main reason for posting this is because to my mind there are too many guilty terrorists getting away with their atrocities. Nobody would suggest that the jury system is the fairest but even this latest trial the complexities went over the heads of the jury. That probably means they acted as directed by the judge or prosecution and was not a vote of free will.
Only today it was published that 30 terrorists in our midst are to be relieved of control orders some who have been under surveillance for a number of years. They cannot be brought to trial because the law in its present form does not allow evidence because of the way it was gained even though the security services knew of their guilt. So we can't charge them, the human rights act presumes total innocence and they are free to carry out mahem. Maybe we should worry more about innocent people going about their business.
Only today it was published that 30 terrorists in our midst are to be relieved of control orders some who have been under surveillance for a number of years. They cannot be brought to trial because the law in its present form does not allow evidence because of the way it was gained even though the security services knew of their guilt. So we can't charge them, the human rights act presumes total innocence and they are free to carry out mahem. Maybe we should worry more about innocent people going about their business.
Control orders con't:
Another terrorist released because he cannot be charged else secret information would be let out if he was brought before a jury. Who are we really trying to protect?
http://www.theage.com.au/world/freedom-for-detained-uk-terror-suspect-20090907-febx.html
Another terrorist released because he cannot be charged else secret information would be let out if he was brought before a jury. Who are we really trying to protect?
http://www.theage.com.au/world/freedom-for-detained-uk-terror-suspect-20090907-febx.html
It is not the Human Rights Act that “presumes total innocence”, rov.
It has been a fundamental principle of UK law for hundreds of years (long before the concept of Human Rights came along) that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Nor is it HR legislation that prevents evidence gathered by certain means from being used in court. These are fundamental issues of general law and rules of evidence. If the law is coming up short then these need to be addressed, but not just for specific offences or classes of offenders. The law must be the same across the board.
Control Orders have been ruled out of order in the cases you mention because those affected have not been allowed to see the evidence that is said to exist against them. Again, a fundamental shortcoming. I’m sure you would not like to be subject to such an order if you could not be told what you had allegedly done and thus had no chance of disputing it.
We must beware that freedoms enjoyed by us all are not sacrificed in the name of “security”.
It has been a fundamental principle of UK law for hundreds of years (long before the concept of Human Rights came along) that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Nor is it HR legislation that prevents evidence gathered by certain means from being used in court. These are fundamental issues of general law and rules of evidence. If the law is coming up short then these need to be addressed, but not just for specific offences or classes of offenders. The law must be the same across the board.
Control Orders have been ruled out of order in the cases you mention because those affected have not been allowed to see the evidence that is said to exist against them. Again, a fundamental shortcoming. I’m sure you would not like to be subject to such an order if you could not be told what you had allegedly done and thus had no chance of disputing it.
We must beware that freedoms enjoyed by us all are not sacrificed in the name of “security”.
-- answer removed --
rov1200
Don't you that that if we change our way of life, our laws, our freedoms and our principals to deal with these people, then they have won. They would like nothing better than for Britain to be as autocratic as their leaders, and if we dispense with juries and let the state rather than the people decide, then we have indeed lost.
Don't you that that if we change our way of life, our laws, our freedoms and our principals to deal with these people, then they have won. They would like nothing better than for Britain to be as autocratic as their leaders, and if we dispense with juries and let the state rather than the people decide, then we have indeed lost.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Phrases & Sayings7 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Labour's Lead Evaporating.....
News31 mins ago
News34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.