Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: This is MASSIVELY important
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
JK2006 wrote:
I think that is fair; and a reason why I don't believe democracy works anymore. I know from my own professional life; give them enough simple, basic reasons to like something and they will. Bright colours work. Just look at the history of advertising!
The jury system is equally broken but Randall is right; when lawyers, police, CPS, Judges are also paid by the state, they are no longer Independent. And the quality of brains shrinks too. So you get weak minded, poorly educated, underpaid individuals running society. No wonder we are all rushing to the cliff edge.
I am pretty sure that advertising works just as well on the supposedly most intelligent as the supposedly thick. |
|
JK2006 |
I think that is fair; and a reason why I don't believe democracy works anymore. I know from my own professional life; give them enough simple, basic reasons to like something and they will. Bright colours work. Just look at the history of advertising!
The jury system is equally broken but Randall is right; when lawyers, police, CPS, Judges are also paid by the state, they are no longer Independent. And the quality of brains shrinks too. So you get weak minded, poorly educated, underpaid individuals running society. No wonder we are all rushing to the cliff edge. |
|
In The Know |
<<< Researchers conducting mock rape trials found that a juror’s educational background had significant implications for the verdict >>>
why do you seem surprised?
applies to everything they do .... voting in elections / deciding Brexit etc etc
Educational background pays a significant part in everyone's lives - and if they don;t have the capacity why should they be allowed a vote??? |
|
Randall |
The author of this comment, "Exceptio," is thinking along the right lines
[the jury] should be unceremoniously dumped and all cases heard by trained judges who would have to give written reasons for their decisions and conclusions which should be supported by the law, the application of the law to the facts and must be rational. Appeals could then be based on the stated reasons.
The trouble is there's an issue of lack of independence where an individual is prosecuted by the state and the people who decide guilt or innocence are employees of the state.
I favour a requirement for the jury to give a reasoned judgement. If the reasoning is bollocks, that would be grounds for appeal. |
|
JK2006 |
Bitterness tends to affect my digestion so I avoid it like the plague; thank God for Gaviscon. Angry? Oh yes; I've been fuming for 17 years about the broken judicial system; mainly on behalf of others. After all; I deliberately chose to break the law as a teenager, considering it absurd that females were legally able to make decisions on their sex lives at 16; men not at all and, after 1967, only when 21 or 18 - until 2000 when, days after my arrest, the ages of consent were finally equalised. |
|
|
|
