20 comments

[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 35.7 ms ] thread
On one hand, Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs are clear on why jury trials work poorly in multicultural societies. On the other hand, UK judges do not exactly have the best reputation recently, especially on matters of ... criticizing the UK. So ... yeah ... no good options here
This site obnoxiously tries to instantly give me an "anonymised.io" pop-up, which Fennec thankfully decides to ask me whether I want to visit. Apparently they're some sort of AI-powered marketing thing, whatever that means? Surprisingly wasn't instantly blocked by uBlock Origin.
For those who don't like the source, also reported here by the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo
The BBC is currently embroiled in an election interference scandal after it doctored a video of the President to fit the BBC's chosen political narrative.

And it turns out this was just one of a series of political interventions made by the BBC.

This comes after a string of child sexual abuse scandals and cover-ups perpetrated by senior members of the BBC.

The BBC is an alternative news source we'd do well to avoid

GB news!? More sober sources describe it as "considering scrapping" rather than "intends to scrap".
Flagged for the source, which is not reliable.
Unreliable according to whom? Those who find GB News stories politically inconvenient maybe?
The UK is best understood as a "managed democracy" where there are nominally elections, but the government decides who will constitute its voting population, what they are allowed to say, and now whether they will be allowed to acquit people the government decides it would prefer to punish.
Agreed, and I am reminded that Putin once called Russia a "managed democracy." I may not always agree, but I am very glad America has the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments, among others. This tactic by the British government is absurd and offensive to freedom. What I find more baffling, but perhaps I am narrowly thinking about it, is how much the British people are letting it happen. I am not political, but if anyone tried to take our rights under the Bill of Rights, or declared an emergency to cancel elections, I will be in the streets with, I hope, literally every one else.

Some things are just too critical to a free and fair nation, and jury trials are right up there.

Tell me you know nothing about the UK without telling me you know nothing about the UK.
[flagged]
"NHS, housing, water, gas, electricy" aren't a core part of the government. Justice is.
I always found the idea of jury trials terrifying.

We make legal education very hard, very thorough, we teach prospective lawyers about subtle nuances of law, guilt, evidence, bias, epistemology even. We make them do mootings.

Then we say lawyers are the very people who cannot sit in juries, and instead random people are to judge. Actually worse than random - people who have better things to do try to get out of it, or are resentful that they couldn't.

It's a bit like having highly educated doctors explain symptoms, possible diseases, as well as a crash course in biology, immunology and statistics to a panel of randos, who then vote on the best treatment for the patient.

Its only slightly worse than judges and prosecutors under reelection pressure though...

What's the demographics of the people who will replace juries? How does the fate of Underrepresented minorities fare in light of this?