Sir Simon Doesn't Understand Juries

Or worse, Simon Jenkins does understand juries

The point and purpose of juries is jury nullification. This is something openly admitted over The Pond and something that has judges bruising themselves with their bouncing wigs as they denounce it in this country. To the point that just recently they tried to jug some folk for simply stating that a jury can decide as it wishes.

That is the background against which to measure this from Sir Simon Jenkins.

No aspect of these systems is more superfluous than juries. There is no conclusive evidence they are more “just” than systems based on judges in the rest of Europe – or in non-jury courts in Britain.

Missing the point.

To the present government’s credit, it has asked a retired senior judge, Sir Brian Leveson, to find answers to the delay, and he is due to do so. One expected reform is that Britain should join the rest of Europe and end, or drastically curtail, the jury system.

Fuck off.

The “right to a jury” is a hangover from a medieval entitlement to judgment by one’s “peers” over the whim of an unelected manorial lord or other authority. Today, a criminal trial tends to depend overwhelmingly on scientific analysis or, in fraud cases, on technicalities of finance. Leaving this to groups of amateur strangers is absurd, their reasons for ever secret.

Nope, that’s the very point.

The ever increasing criminalisation of public activity merely adds to the problem. Politicians can hardly let a month pass without creating another criminal offence. Hate and offence crimes are current favourites, along with causing “nuisance” and committing strenuous protest. Almost anything done in the driving seat of a car is potentially criminal. Water bosses are apparently now to be imprisoned – I can hear the cheer. As for online crime, the law has barely begun.

Again, this underlines why we have juries.

Back in the day the jury used to decide guilt - or not - in a case of stealing. Back in that day when theft to the value of 5 shillings was a hanging offence. The jury - back in that day - also decided the value of the things stolen. It’s amazin’ how often people were found guilty of theft to the value of 4 shillings and 11 pennies. Which is the point of the jury.

It is possible for us - free as we might think we are - to be subject to an oppressive ruling class. An Establishment insistent on reducing our liberties, even to deprive us of our liberty.

You know, one can vaguely posit that this might, at some point, be true.

One might go on to suggest that the current Establishment has overtones of becoming like that. Don’t smoke, don’t drink, you can’t eat anything tasty and WTF do you think you’re doing even suggesting that the proles get to live in anything other than rabbit hutches? You know, that Establishment of pecksniffs, prodnoses and pimplenoses.

The jury is our last line of defence against them. Because even if they do pass laws and insist they must be obeyed and terrors be upon those who rebel it’s still necessary to gain the agreement of 12 good and true before anyone can be punished significantly.

The Establishment, wishing to wield that power, cannot stand the idea that there is that limit to their power. Which is why they wish to do away with that limitation.

Fuck’em.

The aim, point and purpose of a jury is to subject any accusation by the State against an individual to the simple “Nah, we’ll not be ‘avin’ with that” test.

No, really, fuck‘em. And the horse they ride in on.