Justreadingthenews
582 posts
@Justreading51z
For every decision, ask: “What will this do for a young man looking for a job and saving for a home?”
@martianwyrdlord I’m down
Una nueva y más peligrosa versión del macartismo está de regreso en Estados Unidos. 1/5
Justice Is Not Colour Blind According to the Guardian newspaper, 13th June 2007, ethnic minority jurors favour black defendants. Does this sound like racism to you? The Ministry of Justice suspected this was happening, so it commissioned research. It revealed that black and ethnic minority jurors show more leniency to black defendants than their white counterparts. It found that they were "significantly less likely" to convict a black defendant than a white defendant on a non-race-related charge. And they are much more likely to convict white defendants than white jurors. This bias is called "same race leniency". The offered explanation is that black and Asian jurors believe that the court system treats ethnic minority defendants more harshly, and jurors are subconsciously trying to level the playing field. Professor Cheryl Thomas, who conducted the research, said: "We asked jurors their attitudes towards various aspects of the criminal justice system. BME jurors felt very strongly that the courts treated BME defendants more harshly than white. It was clear black jurors felt this more strongly than Asian jurors." But do not worry about BME jurors perverting the course of justice because the professor also stated that the attitude of individual BME jurors did not alter the overall outcome of the trial. What? This is just a smokescreen so we do not kick up a fuss about being persecuted in court by non-white jurors. In a study involving 27 simulated trials, the racial makeup of the defendant, victim and jurors was varied; defendants were almost always found not guilty by a majority verdict. In one London court where there is a high proportion of black and Asian jurors, the conviction rates for black defendants are lower compared with other areas. Another study in June 2002 in response to the Macpherson report showed the same ‘race leniency’. In non-race-related offences, only 12% of BME jurors found BME defendants guilty, compared with 26% of white jurors. But 59% of BME jurors found white defendants guilty compared with 33% of white jurors. This is not a new problem. ‘Same race leniency’ has been known about since our experiment with mass immigration began. It may not have been researched or studied by academics, but people within the justice system could see it with their own eyes. We have all seen American TV shows where lawyers reject specific jurors before a court case begins in the hope of a more favourable jury. To a certain extent, this used to happen here before the law was changed. Why was the law changed? An interesting question. A peremptory challenge is the right to challenge jurors without stating a reason. A defendant could reject a limited number of potential jurors without providing any reason. This allowed both sides to shape the jury based on intuition, appearance, or perceived bias. The practice started in medieval England, where defendants in capital cases could use up to 35 such challenges. It was later reduced to 20 in 1530, seven in 1948, and three in 1977. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 abolished the defendant's right to peremptory challenge a juror and aligned with recommendations from the Roskill Committee (1986), which criticised peremptories as an "erosion of the principle of random selection". High-profile cases in the 1970s and 1980s highlighted the abuse of the system. The Mangrove Nine trial involved black activists charged after protests against police harassment. The defendants collectively used up to 63 peremptory challenges (seven each) to reject white jurors in an effort to secure more black representation on the jury. This strategy was used in other trials involving black defendants, such as the Bristol riot cases, where judges advised using challenges for racial balance. “In a multiracial society, trial by verdict can result in communal prejudices influencing verdicts. I would rather put my future in the hands of a trained judge than in the hands of twelve men who can be swayed by prejudices or rhetoric. Jury trials may work in homogeneous societies, but not in sharply multiracial ones. You cannot assume that each juror will set aside his race, religion, and language. The jury system is part of an English tradition that presumes a common culture. That assumption cannot hold in a society like ours.” Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore Could this be the reason why the Labour government is trying to limit jury trials in the UK? Have they seen the data on our broken criminal justice system, the unconscious bias, and the obvious corruption? Is this policy about heading off a problem before it enters the public realm? Why wait until the public is screaming about unfair courts and pointing the finger at mass immigration and racial loyalties? It would be sensible to fix the problem now. Unfortunately for us, fixing the problem means destroying our thousand-year-old right to trial and to be judged by our peers. Another great institution broken through immigration. (the above is a section from my new book: Who Broke Britain? amzn.eu/d/0ixJDLE1)
Shutting down USAID literally made Africa darker.
The new government is taking immediate action to give people some breathing space on the cost of living. From 1 October, VAT will be removed from domestic electricity bills - helping households with energy costs this winter and funded within existing budgets.
