Categories
Sentence first – verdict afterwards – politicalbetting.com
Sentence first – verdict afterwards – politicalbetting.com
It is again time to review what the “intellectually challenged from the neck up” party (© Joanna Cherry) – or the SNP as it is usually known – is up to. Having finally found an auditor (though, rather embarrassingly for a pro-independence party, there was not one auditor anywhere in Scotland willing or able to take on the job) the Holyrood government has decided to reform the Scottish criminal justice system. In one of his previous roles as Justice Minister, the current First Minister introduced the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 – an Act which very many groups have described as having a chilling effect on free speech, criminalising as it does expressions of opinion in the privacy of one’s home. It has proved so contentious that more than 2 years after being passed, it has yet to come into force.
Comments
https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-morawiecki-jestem-zwolennikiem-kary-smierci,nId,6768946
A question though.
"without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to. The evidence for these myths affecting jurors is a pilot based on mock trials (not real ones)."
I am not a lawyer (tm). AIUI in England (and I presume Scotland, though not the US?), jurors cannot be questioned about *why* they decided one way or the other. Is this correct, and if so, what alternative is there to mock trials when you want to try to understand *why* juries vote the way they do?
(Apols if my understanding is incorrect.)
It's sort of a corollary to Popper's paradox of tolerance.
20D Offence: disclosing jury's deliberations
(1)It is an offence for a person intentionally—
(a)to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or
(b)to solicit or obtain such information,
subject to the exceptions in sections 20E to 20G.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).
(3)Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
Seems to me, in the broad sweep of history, we ditched religious marriage as the mechanism for establishing sexual consent, and haven’t really figured out what to replace it with. Not sure lawyers, the legal system and, ultimately, our current crop of politicians have the answers.
I think every society needs a coherent, easily understood - and broadly considered “fair” mechanism for establishing sexual consent, to function.
Any ideas, anyone?
Thanks again, @Cyclefree your output on here is outstanding.
Whether or not juries are subject to bias will always be contentious, but is an extremely difficult area objectively to research - and the question she raises about judges being subject to their own biases is eminently reasonable.
FWIW, what evidence we have suggests that jury bias isn't really the issue.
Juries convict defendants for rape more often than acquit
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit
What's beyond question is the patchy - or worse - provision of police investigation, and the enormous delays rape cases are subject to.
Doing something about that would, naturally, involve a large commitment of additional resources. But such an effort would unquestionably be fair to both alleged victims and perpetrators.
Ostensibly easy fixes like this one are no substitute for that.
The male body is badly designed with a brain and a penis and only enough blood supply for one to operate at any one time.
Rep. George Santos R-NY is charged with unemployment benefits fraud.
The House is slated to vote this week on a bill to help states recover fraudulent COVID unemployment payments.
**Santos is a co-sponsor of that bill.**
https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1656300093362823168
https://twitter.com/elaine_paige/status/1258461781703512064
Then there's the complexity angle.
A woman who lost her baby during pregnancy has spoken of the trauma of being fined for claiming the free prescriptions available to expectant mothers.
Sadie Hawkes, 33, from Leeds, miscarried before she received a maternity exemption certificate entitling her to free medication for the duration of her pregnancy.
She was then sent a letter demanding £9.35 for medication she had been given the week before her miscarriage – along with a fine of £46.75 for claiming it for free.
Ms Hawkes, a veterinary nurse, was told she could not apply for a retrospective exemption because she was no longer pregnant.
"I rang them up straight away - explained I've lost my baby and assumed they'll say 'that's fine, don't worry'," she said.
"[But] just the way she spoke to me - it's actually disgusting. She said I had to prove I was pregnant, which meant me having to go to my doctor's and get the notes. That was traumatic."
Maternity exemption certificates are only issued 12 weeks into pregnancy, but can take longer.
As many as one in three pregnant women never receive one. Many eligible patients are unaware of the requirement until they receive a fine, usually months later.
Under government rules, registration can only be backdated by a month, leaving women facing charges even after providing proof of their pregnancy dates.
Ms Hawkes' fine was waived after she challenged the demand, but she was still expected to pay for the prescription.
Nicola Good, another woman who was sent a fine after miscarrying, had to complain repeatedly before the charge was dropped.
https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-05-10/expectant-mum-who-lost-baby-fined-for-claiming-free-medication
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) on Wednesday said that internet services across the country will remain suspended for an indefinite period.
The telecommunication authority confirmed that the decision to block mobile broadband services was taken on the directives of the Ministry of Interior.
A day earlier, the services were shutdown as protests erupted after Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s arrest in Al-Qadir Trust case.
Moreover, major social media sites including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are also reportedly down for many users in Pakistan as they are unable to access these platforms since yesterday.
Videos of violent protests were shared widely on social media platforms after unrest flared up following the former prime minister’s arrest, after which mobile broadband services were blocked.
The PTA spokesperson had said that the regulatory authority was also receiving reports of social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, being down. However, these reports could not be confirmed, she added.
Sources told Geo News that “unwarranted” clips of the protests were shared on social media after which various platforms started experiencing disruptions around 8pm on Tuesday, causing problems for citizens.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/486535-internet-service-in-pakistan-to-remain-suspended-for-indefinite-period-pta
First this:
The justification for the pilot is to enable judges to decide on the evidence without falling prey for various rape myths which juries are said to be prone to.
but then this:
For instance, it may well be true as a generality to say that women do not make up allegations of rape or that a woman not fighting back does not mean she has consented. But you cannot say this in every single case. Defendants are not tried on generalities but on the specific evidence, on the individual facts and those facts may well point to an acquittal even if, to outsiders, it may look otherwise.
So you appear to be undermining your own point. The justification is that the case is tried on its own merits rather then generalised prejudices about victim behaviour. Putting whether or not jury trials are best for achieving this to one side, you can't attack this proposal on the grounds that aims to generalise after you have claimed that it aims to do the opposite.
Point 4 (c) should have been cut.
What he said was that if it wasn't against EU law he might consider it. That could be applied to half the Tory Party and even that's not interesting
I know it takes a toll on them.
The other point it makes is whether to debrief with a judge or mental health pro. Prsesumably, insofar as it touched on the doings in the jury room, the latter would be illegal? Indeed, the former too?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202211/jury-duty-verdicts-and-vicarious-trauma
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/10/voting-intention-con-26-lab-43-3-4-may-2023
C26, L43, LD10, S4, PC1, Ref6, G7
The following faculties have so far confirmed they will be boycotting juryless courts.
Aberdeen, Airdrie, Ayr, Borders, Dumfries, Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Hamilton, Highland & Moray, Paisley, Perth and West Lothian.
Surely it an only be a matter of time before they begin another hunt for a winning leader
I heard Robert Jenrick on the one o'clock news. The nasty party really are back with a vengeance
It might be a long wait.
That's where PB really excels.
Cyclefree's view, from the article. This may be true, but it may also be true that conviction rates are low because of the standard of proof required in cases where independent evidence is often lacking. These difficulties are inherent in cases where there was some sort of relationship subsisting between the parties; and, I suspect, juries also tend to think that sentencing for rape starts too high for cases where the evidence is between two people who have had involvement together and where at best both have not acted especially wisely.
NHS scheme will allow school leavers to train as doctors without traditional medical degree
New apprenticeships would put people on wards straight after their A-levels, instead of paying pricey fees for five years at university
School leavers will be able to start working as doctors without going to university, under new NHS plans to fix the growing staff crisis.
The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the "radical new approach".
It is the centrepiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/doctors-practice-without-degree-university-nhs-apprentice/
I wonder how much cash Hands has manged to raise from his poorly worded email? It'll be interesting to see if any major donors switch horses soon.
The problem is that by making the system inherently unsafe they could actually end up with a lot more guilty defendents ultimately goingfree on appeal.
This is right back to the old days of apothecaries and 'surgeons' learning on the job as apprentices. Formal training optional. Uni only if you wanted to be posh and gentlemanly and cater for a posh clientele. 180 years ago?
C29, L43, LD11, S3, PC1, Ref5, G6. Again 3-4 May data so pre locals.
A more trivial question, and perhaps one you may have been asked before (driven by my curiosity about people's nom de plumes): Are you without a bicycle or do you like to cycle without inhibition or, perhaps, has your washing machine broken (in which case I recommend Calgon)?
I know, I am losing it!
But there are other ways to achieve that specific aim.
Justice is an irregular verb.
Non-exhaustive list of people who appear to have said no to being Tory candidate for London Mayor, so far:
Iain Dale
Osborne
Vaizey
Tom Tugs
Nick Candy
Karen Bradey
Hinting:
Rob Rinder
Dan Korski
Shaun Bailey
Nick Rogers
Paul Scully
Running:
Samuel Kasumu
Andrew Boff
Throw him to the Head Count!
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that the number of families with adult children living with their parents rose 13.6 per cent in the decade between 2011 and 2021, to nearly 3.8 million.
Across England and Wales over that decade, the number of 20 to 24-year-olds living with their parents rose from 44.5 per cent to just over half, or 51.2 per cent, with the total number of adult children living with their parents increasing 14.7 per cent, from about 4.2 million to about 4.9 million.
The average age of adult children living with their parents in England and Wales in 2021 was 24, one year older than in 2011. In London the average age was the oldest, at 25. The median age in every other English region and in Wales was 24.
The ONS denied that its findings were linked to the fact that the census was taken during the pandemic. It said: “The rise in numbers of adults living with their parents appears to be a continuing trend rather than a result of the pandemic.”
Most people in their early twenties were living with their parents by the time of Census 2021, the ONS said.
Adults were more likely to live with their parents in areas where housing was expensive, showing the impact of high rents and housing costs.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/census-2021-more-than-half-of-adults-aged-24-and-under-live-with-parents-g76vtq8kw
The supposed scandal is the number of ALLEGATIONS that never make court. But until they reach court, they are merely that: allegations
Embattled US Rep George Santos arrested on fraud, money laundering charges reut.rs/3pnYQDL
I have no doubt that most complainants believe what they claim, but in many of those cases the accused may have very different recollections of the events.
Juryless trials for alleged crimes which could put you in prison for ten years are an abomination. This is not how we do justice. It is repulsive
The Supreme Court should put Humza back in his box
"She consented"
"I did not consent"
It is all made worse when both sides were drunk, and both accounts are probably quite unreliable. And in the nature of sex cases, all this will be without witnesses or corroboration. And often with a previous history of sexual intimacy between the same two people
In these case the CPS is often reluctant to take allegations to court knowing that the chances of conviction are very low, as it is seen as a waste of public time and money.
Maybe it is a thing!
I give it exactly zero chance, but what if Trump really is being stitched up? (For the sake of argument assume I've gone momentarily insane and I give Trump some tiny chance that he's telling the truth.)
I think we could sell them a well-washed Boris - he'd be better than they have.