A New Racists' Charter in the making?

[Calladan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40613886

The public will be able to challenge a wider range of sentences given for terror offences under new plans.

Currently, people in England and Wales can challenge punishments given for the most serious terror offences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

But under the changes - which come into effect on 8 August - sentences for 19 other crimes will be open to challenge.

I really cannot overstate how much I hate the idea of the public being involved in the justice system to start with. Not in the court side of it - twelve people sitting on a jury is fine, because they hear all the evidence, the witnesses and so on and so forth, and get specific legal direction from the Judge (a person who has, one assumes, a fairly large experience in the matter of handing down legal direction) before making their decision about innocence and guilt.

No - the part I hate is the idea of all the Sun Readers, the bigots, the racists and the general public who get their news from The Daily Mail, The Express and the web being allowed to decide whether a sentence was lenient enough, or whether it should be more severe. To me that just seems to be asking for trouble in the first place.

Because the papers, the news, the internet and so on are NEVER going to report ALL of the evidence and ALL of the testimony and ALL of the legal points. They will report the most salacious and interesting details, and ignore the rest. Or they will report what best fits their side of the story and leave the rest. And while the reporting in the UK is a darn site better than it is in some other countries, it will still be biased to whatever the political agenda of the paper/site reporting it is.

And now, opening this up to let the public decide on "terror related offences", most of which appear to involve people with brown skin (because I have yet to see the government apply the word terrorist freely and fairly to people of all races and nationalities) is just going to give free reign to all the racists, bigots and xenophobes like Farage and his merry men who want to get the foreigners out of here.

Someone once argued that if a law that is not specifically targeted at a given race, or sex, is going to overly affect that race, or that sex, then that law is racist or sexist despite it not appearing so. And I would argue that that is what this law is going to do. (Sorry, change in the law). By allowing the public to weigh in on "terror related offences" it will just breed more hate, more division and more bigotry.

Or am I wrong? Is the government doing the right thing in letting us, the ill-informed public, have our say on judicial matters, and that this can only be a good thing for democracy, peace and justice?

[Cedoria]

I agree with the OP... Populism being introduced into the judicial system is a catastrophe..

Anybody who thinks a member of the general public could get their information from rags of the sort you mentioned and make an appropriate judgement on such cases is a fool frankly. I would hope that even the British Tories are not dumb enough for this sort of populism, but one can't be sure.

I agree, the judicial system already has a system of public involvement in trials that works perfectly well, although I must say I don't think anything beyond the jury should be permitted in ANY circumstance, and this is just windy populism to stir up the closet (and not so closet) xenophobes.

The judicial system is not about democracy, it's about FACT. People are not entitled to their own facts when it comes to matters as serious as criminal charges.

This is serious bullshit, and I hope it gets knocked back for the stupidity it is.

It's not just about it being the potential for racist ranters to make decisions without legitimate cause either, I would think just in general it's a stupid idea, even without needing to make that part of the case. There's plenty of other reasons why it's a shit idea to let something like this go to mob justice.

[Risottia]

I agree with the OP... Populism being introduced into the judicial system is a catastrophe

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.

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree with the OP... Populism being introduced into the judicial system is a catastrophe

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_ ... ng_verdict

Where it applies, can temper that or allow it to restrain the government at least.

[Cedoria]

I agree with the OP... Populism being introduced into the judicial system is a catastrophe

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.

Not really. That''s not populism, since the justices being randomly selected doesn't mean just letting random emotions run sway. The judge gives very clear directions to a jury about procedures, rules of evidence etc. This is on a completely different plane. 12 member jury is enough to ensure a fair trial and a reasonable level of public confidence in judicial decisions, but just opening it up to every whacko and his cousin to mouth off on cases he hasn't heard and knows nothing about is next-level stupid in comparison. I hope you can see the distinction between those two things.

[Minoa]

The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme has been around since 1988 and the changes will not be applied retrospectively.

And this is why I don't use clickbait titles.

[Souseiseki]

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.

Not really. That''s not populism, since the justices being randomly selected doesn't mean just letting random emotions run sway. The judge gives very clear directions to a jury about procedures, rules of evidence etc. This is on a completely different plane. 12 member jury is enough to ensure a fair trial and a reasonable level of public confidence in judicial decisions, but just opening it up to every whacko and his cousin to mouth off on cases he hasn't heard and knows nothing about is next-level stupid in comparison. I hope you can see the distinction between those two things.

there are entire laws which are literally entirely based on letting emotions run sway and the jury is basically free to say fuck it and give whatever verdict they feel. jury trials are plagued with "well he just seems like a bad guy!" issues.

[Minzerland II]

I agree with not allowing this. I don't know about you, though, but I'm more worried about the people who're inclined to be more lenient to criminals for being foreigners, minorities, Muslims or whatever 'oppressed group' you can think up, tbh. :^)

[Souseiseki]

I agree with not allowing this. I don't know about you, though, but I'm more worried about the people who're inclined to be more lenient to criminals for being foreigners, minorities, Muslims or whatever 'oppressed group' you can think up, tbh. :^)

hmm. i want to disagree with this, but i'm not sure i can compete with your deep understanding of the english court system.

[Crockerland]

Someone once argued that if a law that is not specifically targeted at a given race, or sex, is going to overly affect that race, or that sex, then that law is racist or sexist despite it not appearing so.

I agree totally, in fact I think this is the biggest issue facing most western countries today. For example, Black people commit 52% of murder in America despite making up only 12% of the population, and yet there are still bigoted racist xenophobes who are seriously defending murder being criminalized, disgusting.

[Kennlind]

No - the part I hate is the idea of all the Sun Readers, the bigots, the racists and the general public who get their news from The Daily Mail, The Express and the web being allowed to decide whether a sentence was lenient enough, or whether it should be more severe. To me that just seems to be asking for trouble in the first place.

Sorry but the UK is a democracy. Everyone's say is equal, regardless of where they get their news from.

[Kennlind]

Someone once argued that if a law that is not specifically targeted at a given race, or sex, is going to overly affect that race, or that sex, then that law is racist or sexist despite it not appearing so.

I agree totally, in fact I think this is the biggest issue facing most western countries today. For example, Black people commit 52% of murder in America despite making up only 12% of the population, and yet there are still bigoted racist xenophobes who are seriously defending murder being criminalized, disgusting.

don't mention race! just pretend white people do the same thing on the same scale!

[Minzerland II]

I agree with not allowing this. I don't know about you, though, but I'm more worried about the people who're inclined to be more lenient to criminals for being foreigners, minorities, Muslims or whatever 'oppressed group' you can think up, tbh. :^)

hmm. i want to disagree with this, but i'm not sure i can compete with your deep understanding of the english court system.

I'm only discussing the topic and adding a new facet to the fears of the OP. If there is fear of giving 'free reign to all the racists, bigots and xenophobes like Farage and his merry men who want to get the foreigners out of here,' then why not any fear for what I have suggested? :^)

[Cedoria]

Not really. That''s not populism, since the justices being randomly selected doesn't mean just letting random emotions run sway. The judge gives very clear directions to a jury about procedures, rules of evidence etc. This is on a completely different plane. 12 member jury is enough to ensure a fair trial and a reasonable level of public confidence in judicial decisions, but just opening it up to every whacko and his cousin to mouth off on cases he hasn't heard and knows nothing about is next-level stupid in comparison. I hope you can see the distinction between those two things.

there are entire laws which are literally entirely based on letting emotions run sway and the jury is basically free to say fuck it and give whatever verdict they feel. jury trials are plagued with "well he just seems like a bad guy!" issues.

Of course... But generally speaking the jury trial is going to have that problem much less than whatever deranged nonsense this idea will spring up, and I feel having a trial by jury is important for guaranteeing judicial fairness. Sure, judges are experts, but community expectations mean SOME public involvement is necessary to maintain judicial confidence. It's just this one is way too far off one end.

I agree with not allowing this. I don't know about you, though, but I'm more worried about the people who're inclined to be more lenient to criminals for being foreigners, minorities, Muslims or whatever 'oppressed group' you can think up, tbh. :^)

More likely to be the opposite, but if that's your objection, it's still an equally valid one, the point is that more public involvement by people who don't know the case and haven't been hearing the evidence means more decisions made on irrelevant stuff and not on the actual case being presented.

If the English public's knowledge of the judicial system is as bad as the general public of Australia's is, I think this becomes doubly stupid, I never fail to be amazed by the people who mouth off about the silliness of the justice system yet have no idea how it actually works.

[Minzerland II]

I agree with not allowing this. I don't know about you, though, but I'm more worried about the people who're inclined to be more lenient to criminals for being foreigners, minorities, Muslims or whatever 'oppressed group' you can think up, tbh. :^)

More likely to be the opposite, but if that's your objection, it's still an equally valid one, the point is that more public involvement by people who don't know the case and haven't been hearing the evidence means more decisions made on irrelevant stuff and not on the actual case being presented.

If the English public's knowledge of the judicial system is as bad as the general public of Australia's is, I think this becomes doubly stupid, I never fail to be amazed by the people who mouth off about the silliness of the justice system yet have no idea how it actually works.

Indeed. I am more than happy and confident in the judicial system as it exists.

[Calladan]

The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme has been around since 1988 and the changes will not be applied retrospectively.

Yes, I read that part too. But in 1988 the Twin Towers hadn't fallen, the word "MUSLIM" hadn't become synonymous with the word "TERRORIST" in a lot of people's minds (that was still reserved for "IRISHMAN") and Nigel Farage hadn't whipped up enough anti-immigrant sentiment to sink every single boat currently floating across the Med.

And in 1988 this was reserved for a very few crimes (such as) :-

murder
rape
robbery
some child sex crimes and child cruelty
some serious fraud
some serious drug crimes
crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion

And quite honestly, if I had known about it then (I was still a child at that point, and not all that politically active) I would have been appalled. Criminal cases, such as murder trials, are INCREDIBLY COMPLEX THINGS and go on for days, sometimes weeks. The idea that you can get a full understanding of all the nuances of the legal arguments from what you read in The Sun, or even in The Guardian, is bullshit.

And now? Now it is being opened up to include "supporting proscribed organisations, encouraging terrorism, sharing terrorist propaganda, or not disclosing information about a terrorist attack", which (as I said) given the UK government's apparent reticence to label white people terrorists is going to mean quite a lot of people with brown skin are now going to have people clamouring for their sentences to be reviewed. In fact pretty much any time ANYONE is sentenced for one of these crimes, I can almost guarantee Nick Griffin or one of his ilk is going to say "WELL I THINK IT'S BLOODY DISGUSTING THAT THIS FOREIGNER CAN COME OVER HERE AND SAY THESE THINGS AND ONLY BE SENTENCED TO 200 YEARS IN JAIL!! HE SHOULD GET AT LEAST 500 YEARS FOR DESECRATING OUR BRITISH SOIL IN SUCH A FOUL, ODIOUS WAY" and other such lovely comments.

The law says it only takes ONE person to request a review for a review to be triggered. So, like I said, pretty much any person convicted of even the most innocuous terrorist offence (like the woman who was given a suspended sentence for writing poetry) can now have their sentence reviewed because some jerk off bigot in Bumblefuck, Racistown thinks she was treated too kindly.

This is not democracy, and this is not what the UK should be about.

This is pandering to right wing bigots and Brexiteers because Maggie May fucked up the election.

[Vassenor]

No - the part I hate is the idea of all the Sun Readers, the bigots, the racists and the general public who get their news from The Daily Mail, The Express and the web being allowed to decide whether a sentence was lenient enough, or whether it should be more severe. To me that just seems to be asking for trouble in the first place.

Sorry but the UK is a democracy. Everyone's say is equal, regardless of where they get their news from.

I didn't know that the papers printed the exact content and context of every article of evidence presented in a trial.

Also if everyone's say is equal then why is half of the country being ignored re: Brexit?

[The East Marches II]

The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme has been around since 1988 and the changes will not be applied retrospectively.

Yes, I read that part too. But in 1988 the Twin Towers hadn't fallen, the word "MUSLIM" hadn't become synonymous with the word "TERRORIST" in a lot of people's minds (that was still reserved for "IRISHMAN") and Nigel Farage hadn't whipped up enough anti-immigrant sentiment to sink every single boat currently floating across the Med.

And in 1988 this was reserved for a very few crimes (such as) :-

murder
rape
robbery
some child sex crimes and child cruelty
some serious fraud
some serious drug crimes
crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion

And quite honestly, if I had known about it then (I was still a child at that point, and not all that politically active) I would have been appalled. Criminal cases, such as murder trials, are INCREDIBLY COMPLEX THINGS and go on for days, sometimes weeks. The idea that you can get a full understanding of all the nuances of the legal arguments from what you read in The Sun, or even in The Guardian, is bullshit.

And now? Now it is being opened up to include "supporting proscribed organisations, encouraging terrorism, sharing terrorist propaganda, or not disclosing information about a terrorist attack", which (as I said) given the UK government's apparent reticence to label white people terrorists is going to mean quite a lot of people with brown skin are now going to have people clamouring for their sentences to be reviewed. In fact pretty much any time ANYONE is sentenced for one of these crimes, I can almost guarantee Nick Griffin or one of his ilk is going to say "WELL I THINK IT'S BLOODY DISGUSTING THAT THIS FOREIGNER CAN COME OVER HERE AND SAY THESE THINGS AND ONLY BE SENTENCED TO 200 YEARS IN JAIL!! HE SHOULD GET AT LEAST 500 YEARS FOR DESECRATING OUR BRITISH SOIL IN SUCH A FOUL, ODIOUS WAY" and other such lovely comments.

The law says it only takes ONE person to request a review for a review to be triggered. So, like I said, pretty much any person convicted of even the most innocuous terrorist offence (like the woman who was given a suspended sentence for writing poetry) can now have their sentence reviewed because some jerk off bigot in Bumblefuck, Racistown thinks she was treated too kindly.

This is not democracy, and this is not what the UK should be about.

This is pandering to right wing bigots and Brexiteers because Maggie May fucked up the election.

Yes, apparently its about giving people suspended sentences for the wrong sort of poetry and jailing people for twitter jokes. What a shame!

[Imperializt Russia]

I agree with the OP... Populism being introduced into the judicial system is a catastrophe

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.

[Kennlind]

The law says it only takes ONE person to request a review for a review to be triggered. So, like I said, pretty much any person convicted of even the most innocuous terrorist offence (like the woman who was given a suspended sentence for writing poetry) can now have their sentence reviewed because some jerk off bigot in Bumblefuck, Racistown thinks she was treated too kindly.

This is not democracy, and this is not what the UK should be about.

This is pandering to right wing bigots and Brexiteers because Maggie May fucked up the election.

She was an Islamic Extremist writing poetry such as "How to Behead". It was incitement, a guide on how to kill people. She shouldn't have been let off free, she should be in prison right for teaching people how to murder.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[...]This is not democracy,[...]

What does this new 'charter in the making' have to do with democracy? I'm having a hard time as to seeing how this is related to democracy (apart from the fact that, if I remember correctly, these charters are voted on).

[Kennlind]

Sorry but the UK is a democracy. Everyone's say is equal, regardless of where they get their news from.

I didn't know that the papers printed the exact content and context of every article of evidence presented in a trial.

Also if everyone's say is equal then why is half of the country being ignored re: Brexit?

They aren't. We held a referendum, they lost. A majority of voters said yes. Nobody is being ignored, we are being listened to.

[Vassenor]

I didn't know that the papers printed the exact content and context of every article of evidence presented in a trial.

Also if everyone's say is equal then why is half of the country being ignored re: Brexit?

They aren't. We held a referendum, they lost. A majority of voters said yes. Nobody is being ignored, we are being listened to.

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

[Ifreann]

Why not just skip the trial and lock up whoever the papers think dunnit?

[Imperializt Russia]

I didn't know that the papers printed the exact content and context of every article of evidence presented in a trial.

Also if everyone's say is equal then why is half of the country being ignored re: Brexit?

They aren't. We held a referendum, they lost. A majority of voters said yes. Nobody is being ignored, we are being listened to.

Only if by "we" you mean pro-Brexit voters. The SNP and LibDems ran on anti-Brexit platforms and lost vote share, UKIP ran on a single-issue pro-Brexit platform and was wiped out, and the Tories and Labour ran on differing "Brexit will happen" (I'd be hesitant to properly label Labour "pro-Brexit") platforms and increased vote share to about 83% of the votes cast between them.