A New Racists' Charter in the making?

[Eisarn-Ara]

Legitimately, nobody aside insane shrieking leftists bitch about Trump anymore. Nobody cares.

[Vassenor]

Legitimately, nobody aside insane shrieking leftists bitch about Trump anymore. Nobody cares.

Clearly someone isn't paying attention to the news right now.

[Luminesa]

Trump and Hillary both like it when you mention them in threads that have nothing to do with them, keep it up.

I guess since you don't know this, given your very enlightened response, Trump and Hillary are both massive narcissists. I'm sure they love being mentioned everywhere, and are thankful to you for doing so every moment of your life on NS, when you could be using that time for doing far more productive things.

[The Emerald Legion]

Populism in the judicial system is the whole point of a trial by 12 "randomly" selected guys. If you want to take populism out of the justice, start with switching to trial by a college of judges, or a college of both judges and laypeople.

Except that's not populism. If the judge deems the jury to be biased and/or prejudiced, he will dismiss them. This is an extremely common occurrence.

That has to happen when selecting the Jurors. Once the trial is underway you're stuck with them.

[Vassenor]

I guess since you don't know this, given your very enlightened response, Trump and Hillary are both massive narcissists. I'm sure they love being mentioned everywhere, and are thankful to you for doing so every moment of your life on NS, when you could be using that time for doing far more productive things.

So why was she content to vanish from the public eye after the election?

[Luminesa]

I guess since you don't know this, given your very enlightened response, Trump and Hillary are both massive narcissists. I'm sure they love being mentioned everywhere, and are thankful to you for doing so every moment of your life on NS, when you could be using that time for doing far more productive things.

So why was she content to vanish from the public eye after the election?

I suppose for the same reason you decide to continue bringing her up. Because she's been defeated and she has nothing better to do than to move on with her li-ah wait.

I say this entirely honestly, all tomfoolery aside. Please. Move on. I was upset for a day when Obama won in 2012, and then I moved on. Live your life, otherwise continuing this persistent mentioning of a woman, whom you claim doesn't want the attention drawn to her, will drain you utterly.

[Minoa]

Legitimately, nobody aside insane shrieking leftists bitch about Trump anymore. Nobody cares.

What is this got to do about the judicial appeals system? Our Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who acts on recommendations from an independent selection commission.

[Greater Cesnica]

Legitimately, nobody aside insane shrieking leftists bitch about Trump anymore. Nobody cares.

You've got a good point there.

[Vassenor]

So why was she content to vanish from the public eye after the election?

I suppose for the same reason you decide to continue bringing her up. Because she's been defeated and she has nothing better to do than to move on with her li-ah wait.

I say this entirely honestly, all tomfoolery aside. Please. Move on. I was upset for a day when Obama won in 2012, and then I moved on. Live your life, otherwise continuing this persistent mentioning of a woman, whom you claim doesn't want the attention drawn to her, will drain you utterly.

I am not even sure what you are getting at here. How is pointing out an example of a majority being ignored in response to a comment about how the will of the majority must be respected feeding her apparent narcissism or somehow indicative of my being unable to "move on"? If anything I could make the same point that evidently some people are still unwilling to move on from the fact that Trump isn't actually supported by the majority like he thinks he is.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

How is pointing out an example of a majority being ignored

Literally only three million people.

[Grand Britannia]

I suppose for the same reason you decide to continue bringing her up. Because she's been defeated and she has nothing better to do than to move on with her li-ah wait.

I say this entirely honestly, all tomfoolery aside. Please. Move on. I was upset for a day when Obama won in 2012, and then I moved on. Live your life, otherwise continuing this persistent mentioning of a woman, whom you claim doesn't want the attention drawn to her, will drain you utterly.

I am not even sure what you are getting at here. How is pointing out an example of a majority being ignored in response to a comment about how the will of the majority must be respected feeding her apparent narcissism or somehow indicative of my being unable to "move on"? If anything I could make the same point that evidently some people are still unwilling to move on from the fact that Trump isn't actually supported by the majority like he thinks he is.

The electors didn't get ignored ;^)

[Ethel mermania]

A majority of voters voted for Hillary to win the US election as well.

Trump and Hillary both like it when you mention them in threads that have nothing to do with them, keep it up.

Tbh, I wouldn't surprise me if they did.

[Sovaal]

Yah, seems like bullshit to me.

[Shrillland]

Moving back on topic....

I have to agree with those who say this is a bad idea. There's simply too much risk for abuse and disproportionate use of this system against not just Muslims, but anyone who has brown skin or remotely resembles a terrorist in the public's imagination even if they happen to be regular people or Hindus or Sikhs, my own country is living proof of this kind of persecution. Yes, I know it's only for people who have already been convicted, but bigots could still use this to send a message. Also, once this passes, the Court of Appeals will be swamped with these types of cases.

[Auristania]

Moving back on topic....

I have to agree with those who say this is a bad idea. There's simply too much risk for abuse and disproportionate use of this system against not just Muslims, but anyone who has brown skin or remotely resembles a terrorist in the public's imagination even if they happen to be regular people or Hindus or Sikhs, my own country is living proof of this kind of persecution. Yes, I know it's only for people who have already been convicted, but bigots could still use this to send a message. Also, once this passes, the Court of Appeals will be swamped with these types of cases.

OP makes such a big deal, I don't wanna ban ALL democracy, jury had heard all the evidence. Jury decides. NOT Daily Mail readers decides, when they only read half the evidence.

Current Law defines that Jury decides Guilt or Innocence and goes home.
Then Judge chooses the punishment.
Some crimes deserve 6 to 24 months jail; some crimes deserve 10 to 30 years.
Current Law defines that Judge chooses the number.
I want to change the Law so that Jury who have heard all the evidence as OP says, chooses the number.

[Vassenor]

Moving back on topic....

I have to agree with those who say this is a bad idea. There's simply too much risk for abuse and disproportionate use of this system against not just Muslims, but anyone who has brown skin or remotely resembles a terrorist in the public's imagination even if they happen to be regular people or Hindus or Sikhs, my own country is living proof of this kind of persecution. Yes, I know it's only for people who have already been convicted, but bigots could still use this to send a message. Also, once this passes, the Court of Appeals will be swamped with these types of cases.

OP makes such a big deal, I don't wanna ban ALL democracy, jury had heard all the evidence. Jury decides. NOT Daily Mail readers decides, when they only read half the evidence.

Current Law defines that Jury decides Guilt or Innocence and goes home.
Then Judge chooses the punishment.
Some crimes deserve 6 to 24 months jail; some crimes deserve 10 to 30 years.
Current Law defines that Judge chooses the number.
I want to change the Law so that Jury who have heard all the evidence as OP says, chooses the number.

I am not sure I see what is "undemocratic" about the current system anyway. Every single crime has its possible sentences laid out in law already.

[Auristania]

OP I am paraphrasing you, have I got it right?
Jury knows all the evidence and decides.
Daily Mail readers only know 1/2 the evidence, therefore, they don't decide.

This proposed Law will allow Daily Mail readers to decide and is a bad thing.

Some crimes deserve 6 to 24 months gaol; some crimes deserve 10 to 30 years.
Current Law states that Judge choose the number. I want to change the Law so that Jury chooses the number.

[Telconi]

OP makes such a big deal, I don't wanna ban ALL democracy, jury had heard all the evidence. Jury decides. NOT Daily Mail readers decides, when they only read half the evidence.

Current Law defines that Jury decides Guilt or Innocence and goes home.
Then Judge chooses the punishment.
Some crimes deserve 6 to 24 months jail; some crimes deserve 10 to 30 years.
Current Law defines that Judge chooses the number.
I want to change the Law so that Jury who have heard all the evidence as OP says, chooses the number.

I am not sure I see what is "undemocratic" about the current system anyway. Every single crime has its possible sentences laid out in law already.

Would you find it democratic if the election for president was held where the people voted in primaries, and then some single person picked the winner of the General?

[Vassenor]

I am not sure I see what is "undemocratic" about the current system anyway. Every single crime has its possible sentences laid out in law already.

Would you find it democratic if the election for president was held where the people voted in primaries, and then some single person picked the winner of the General?

I am not quite sure I see the equivalence here, given that the Judge doesn't decide if the defendant is guilty or not. All the Judge does is run through a document such as this one and determines a sentence based on the facts of the case.

[Olerand]

Sounds like a stupid thing. Not sure how it is a "racist charter", but everything in Britain now has to have something to do with an identity or another.

Anyway, it is stupid to include the angry public in the judicial system. Juries should be exceptions, used only in exceptional cases and circumstances.

[Vassenor]

Sounds like a stupid thing. Not sure how it is a "racist charter", but everything in Britain now has to have something to do with an identity or another.

Anyway, it is stupid to include the angry public in the judicial system. Juries should be exceptions, used only in exceptional cases and circumstances.

So why should the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers be the exception rather than the rule?

And most of this is filtered out by the whole "do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from reaching a decision based solely on the law?" questions.

[Trinity Commonwealth]

How is this big news again? And how is this racist?

The Media is just shitting on it self honestly by making it more and more stupid every time they come out with something so social justily like this. It makes me want to vomit rainbows and unicorns.

No. Stop this. This is not racist at all. You only see this huge headlines when it's minorities, but when it's the main ethnic getting regulated, oh, it never gets covered.

This is not racist.

[Eisarn-Ara]

-

Listen, Vassenor, if you hate having all these lovely rights guaranteed to you via the ties that bind courteously allowing you to bitch and moan about the way of the world; and in particular American Politique, I highly advise you to realise the "Socialist Utopia" you so desire & clamor for will NEVER happen in the United States or within North America. I highly encourage you to immigrate to a Socialist country so that the rest of us can stop having to share in your misery.

[Olerand]

Sounds like a stupid thing. Not sure how it is a "racist charter", but everything in Britain now has to have something to do with an identity or another.

Anyway, it is stupid to include the angry public in the judicial system. Juries should be exceptions, used only in exceptional cases and circumstances.

So why should the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers be the exception rather than the rule?

And most of this is filtered out by the whole "do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from reaching a decision based solely on the law?" questions.

Because one's peers are not professionals in the business of dispensing justice. As America's trials of overzealous police officers and young black men show, one's peers are sometimes... Not judicially talented.

Right... Is it? Do juries just abandon their biases at the door of the courthouse? Their respect for the police? Their hesitance of someone who does not look like them? Their gullibility, their anger, their passion, their sympathy?

I don't see it.

-

Listen, Vassenor, if you hate having all these lovely rights guaranteed to you via the ties that bind courteously allowing you to bitch and moan about the way of the world; and in particular American Politique, I highly advise you to realise the "Socialist Utopia" you so desire & clamor for will NEVER happen in the United States or within North America. I highly encourage you to immigrate to a Socialist country so that the rest of us can stop having to share in your misery.

Fairly sure she is British.

[Vassenor]

HAH

Listen, Vassenor, if you hate having all these lovely rights guaranteed to you via the ties that bind courteously allowing you to bitch and moan about the way of the world; and in particular American Politique, I highly advise you to realise the "Socialist Utopia" you so desire & clamor for will NEVER happen in the United States or within North America. I highly encourage you to immigrate to a Socialist country so that the rest of us can stop having to share in your misery.

Couple of things:

1. It's considered poor form to edit the content of a post you're quoting;
2. You're shoving words into my mouth apparently for no reason at all;
3. The subject of this thread is happening outside of the United States, and;
4. I already live outside the United States.