It is true that there are proposals in the UK to cut down on the number of
jury trials. At present there are three categories of crime: crimes triable
only on indictment, which are always heard by a jury; crimes triable only
summarily, which are always heard by a panel of lay magistrates; and crimes
triable either way. The perceived problem is that for crimes triable either
way the accused usually has an unfettered right to choose whether to be
tried by a jury or by magistrates, however minor the offence. The proposal
is to limit the accused's right to elect for jury trial in some minor cases
which at the moment would be triable either way.

I don't say this is a good idea, but I do not think it is fair to say that
the proposals represent a fundamental inroad into the rights of the accused.
It merely increases the number of minor cases which in future will only be
triable by magistrates.

By the way, I don't know to what extent it is recognised in the US that
scarcely any civil cases in the UK are tried by juries, the only exceptions
of any significance being claims for defamation and false imprisonment.
Juries in civil cases were almost entirely abolished in the 1950s. In my
view this was an excellent innovation, and one which the US would do well to
consider!

Richard Edwards


>From: En Lin Wei <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine
>    <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Trial by a jury of ones peers
>Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:43:02 PDT
>
>Tim Romano wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>He talks about trial by a jury of peers.  His emphasis -- as one might
>expect -- on peers, actually on the difficulty of finding peers who would
>be
>able to judge his actions. What do you make of the concept of "peers" in
>the
>american system of individual rights, by the way?
>>>
>>>
>
>Strange that you mention this right now.  I wss a bit shocked to discover
>that Britain is very sharply cutting back on jury trials, according to a
>recent statement by the PM.  Blair's justification:  a recommendation that
>such cuts will save money which can be used to hire more police.  There
>seems to be little concern on his part whether this will produce a more
>just
>system of rendering verdicts.
>
>I am in favor of trial's by a jury of one's peers, which I take to mean
>ordinary citizens' who are not chosen on the basis of their birth, race,
>social status, gender, or level of wealth.  I understand that too many
>premptory challenges are allowed, and that "average" citizens can make
>mistakes.  But so can judges and lawyers.  Trial by a jury of one's peers
>is, in my view, the best system for rendering verdicts in a democractic
>society.  In fact, in the US, the jury system seems to ensure that the
>judiciary branch is the only branch which is (relatively) untouched by
>corruption attendant on the plutocratic power.
>
>I have heard that the French system, which does not rely and heavily on
>jury
>trials, works quite well.  But I am still hesitant to endorse the
>elimination of jury trials (except where that may be the choice of the
>accused, as the US system sometimes allows).
>
>Regards,
>
>Wei
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com