From: Norman Wells on
Doug wrote:

> Juries are usually vetted for bias

What a very strange and ignorant world you inhabit. Juries are almost never
vetted for anything. The size of the jury ensures a wide range of views, so
it isn't necessary.

> but not with road crash cases and its motorist majority.

And that's a very good thing, since they get out more and have rather more
experience of the world than non-motorists. They are therefore better
equipped to try any sort of case, including those to do with motoring
offences.

> Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a
> jury with a paedophile majority!

It may already have happened. After all, how would you prevent it? Ask
each individual potential juror 'Are you, or have you ever been, a
paedophile'? That would sort it, wouldn't it?

From: Doug on
On 27 Feb, 11:02, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers-
pies.co.am> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Juries are usually vetted for bias
>
> What a very strange and ignorant world you inhabit.  Juries are almost never
> vetted for anything.  The size of the jury ensures a wide range of views, so
> it isn't necessary.
>
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of our legal processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_%28England_and_Wales%29#Empanelling_and_challenging_jurors

"Empanelling and challenging jurors

As of 16 July 2007[update], jurors are called by a written summons
from the Lord Chancellor, despite the recent reform of that office,
executed in practice by a local court officer. A panel of jurors is
summoned, having regard to the convenience of the jurors though there
are no absolute geographical constraints. There are facilities for the
parties to inspect the panel and for individual members to be examined
by the judge if there are doubts about their fitness to serve because
of lack of proficiency in English or because of physical disability,
for example deafness."
>
> > but not with road crash cases and its motorist majority.
>
> And that's a very good thing, since they get out more and have rather more
> experience of the world than non-motorists.  They are therefore better
> equipped to try any sort of case, including those to do with motoring
> offences.
>
What about their bias in favour of motorists like themselves? Bear in
mind also that a significant majority of motorists are persistent
lawbreakers who speed.
>
> > Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a
> > jury with a paedophile majority!
>
> It may already have happened.  After all, how would you prevent it?  Ask
> each individual potential juror 'Are you, or have you ever been, a
> paedophile'?  That would sort it, wouldn't it?
>
See above and criminals are not allowed anyway.

"Jury vetting

Checking the criminal records of the jury panel by the police is only
permitted on the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and
only if:[34]

* It appears that a juror is disqualified, or an attempt has been
made to introduce a disqualified juror;
* There is a belief of attempted interference with a jury in a
previous aborted trial; or
* The nature of case entails a special effort to avoid
disqualified jurors.

Checks beyond criminal records may only be made if authorised by the
Attorney General and there are adequate grounds for a prosecution
request to stand-by."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Brimstone on


"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
news:d1f4236c-dcbe-4da1-abfb-785b5caa9e0f(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Feb, 09:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily,
>> >> sounding
>> >> much like they were saying:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with
>> >> >>>>>>> motoring.
>> >> >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end.
>> >> >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of
>> >> >>>>> a
>> >> >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is
>> >> >>>>> just
>> >> >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years.
>> >> >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though.
>>
>> >> >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE
>> >> >>>> ONE
>> >> >>>> of
>> >> >>>> them.
>>
>> >> >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done.
>> >> >>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate!
>> >> >><slaps forehead>
>> >> >>Migod! You're right!
>>
>> >> >>It's worse than we thought!
>> >> > Up to a point, Lord Copper.
>> >> > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate.
>>
>> >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too
>> >> lenient a
>> >> fate for Motorists Who Kill?
>>
>> > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a
>> > majority would suffice,
>>
>> But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists then it
>> would not be representative of the adult population as a whole would it
>> Doug?
>>
> Juries are usually vetted for bias but not with road crash cases and
> its motorist majority. Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a
> jury with a paedophile majority!

Are paedophile's in the majority amongst the adult population? No, so your
attempt at argument falls flat, again.

>> Even you are a motorist.
>>
> Not any longer, thankfully.

Once a motorist, always a motorist Doug. Just because you choose not to
drive a car it doesn't mean you can't.

>> > with penalties similar to non-road killings.
>>
>> Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence?
>>
> I don't. Manslaughter carries a longer maximum sentence than the
> softer death from dangerous driving.
>
But which has the greater likelihood of prosecution and conviction by a
jury? How would you react if you had to convict someone who had made an
honest mistake? Would you take the view that he should be banged up for the
rest of his natural or "That could be me"?



From: Norman Wells on
Doug wrote:
> On 27 Feb, 11:02, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers-
> pies.co.am> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Juries are usually vetted for bias
>>
>> What a very strange and ignorant world you inhabit. Juries are
>> almost never vetted for anything. The size of the jury ensures a
>> wide range of views, so it isn't necessary.
>>
> Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of our legal processes.

No, I think not.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_%28England_and_Wales%29#Empanelling_and_challenging_jurors
>
> "Empanelling and challenging jurors
>
> As of 16 July 2007[update], jurors are called by a written summons
> from the Lord Chancellor, despite the recent reform of that office,
> executed in practice by a local court officer. A panel of jurors is
> summoned, having regard to the convenience of the jurors though there
> are no absolute geographical constraints. There are facilities for the
> parties to inspect the panel and for individual members to be examined
> by the judge if there are doubts about their fitness to serve because
> of lack of proficiency in English or because of physical disability,
> for example deafness."

Try again. This goes no way towards establishing your point, nor disproving
mine.


>>> but not with road crash cases and its motorist majority.
>>
>> And that's a very good thing, since they get out more and have
>> rather more experience of the world than non-motorists. They are
>> therefore better equipped to try any sort of case, including those
>> to do with motoring offences.
>>
> What about their bias in favour of motorists like themselves?

What bias? Got any evidence for any general bias?

> Bear in
> mind also that a significant majority of motorists are persistent
> lawbreakers who speed.
>>
>>> Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a
>>> jury with a paedophile majority!
>>
>> It may already have happened. After all, how would you prevent it?
>> Ask each individual potential juror 'Are you, or have you ever been,
>> a paedophile'? That would sort it, wouldn't it?
>>
> See above and criminals are not allowed anyway.
>
> "Jury vetting
>
> Checking the criminal records of the jury panel by the police is only
> permitted on the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and
> only if:[34]
>
> * It appears that a juror is disqualified, or an attempt has been
> made to introduce a disqualified juror;
> * There is a belief of attempted interference with a jury in a
> previous aborted trial; or
> * The nature of case entails a special effort to avoid
> disqualified jurors.
>
> Checks beyond criminal records may only be made if authorised by the
> Attorney General and there are adequate grounds for a prosecution
> request to stand-by."

What proportion of paedophiles would you say (a) have a criminal record, (b)
have been sentenced to longer than would be allowed for them to serve on a
jury whatever their offence, and (c) stand any chance of being summoned for
jury duty given that any such criminal record would be known to those doing
the summoning, and would automatically disbar them from serving?



From: Doug on
On 27 Feb, 15:46, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:d1f4236c-dcbe-4da1-abfb-785b5caa9e0f(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 27 Feb, 09:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily,
> >> >> sounding
> >> >> much like they were saying:
>
> >> >> >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with
> >> >> >>>>>>> motoring.
> >> >> >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end.
> >> >> >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of
> >> >> >>>>> a
> >> >> >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is
> >> >> >>>>> just
> >> >> >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years.
> >> >> >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though.
>
> >> >> >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE
> >> >> >>>> ONE
> >> >> >>>> of
> >> >> >>>> them.
>
> >> >> >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done.
> >> >> >>>   Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate!
> >> >> >><slaps forehead>
> >> >> >>Migod! You're right!
>
> >> >> >>It's worse than we thought!
> >> >> > Up to a point, Lord Copper.
> >> >> > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate.
>
> >> >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too
> >> >> lenient a
> >> >> fate for Motorists Who Kill?
>
> >> > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a
> >> > majority would suffice,
>
> >> But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists then it
> >> would not be representative of the adult population as a whole would it
> >> Doug?
>
> > Juries are usually vetted for bias but not with road crash cases and
> > its motorist majority. Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a
> > jury with a paedophile majority!
>
> Are paedophile's in the majority amongst the adult population? No, so your
> attempt at argument falls flat, again.
>
Can't you tell a hypothetical when you see one? It illustrates my
point.
>
> >> Even you are a motorist.
>
> > Not any longer, thankfully.
>
> Once a motorist, always a motorist Doug. Just because you choose not to
> drive a car it doesn't mean you can't.
>
'Choose not to' says it all.
>
> >> >  with penalties similar to non-road killings.
>
> >> Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence?
>
> > I don't. Manslaughter carries a longer maximum sentence than the
> > softer death from dangerous driving.
>
> But which has the greater likelihood of prosecution and conviction by a
> jury?
>
Manslaughter, if the jury isn't dominated by a motorist majority and
there is sympathy for the victim.
>
> How would you react if you had to convict someone who had made an
> honest mistake?
>
Honest mistake my eye! They choose to get behind the wheel and thereby
knowingly put lives at risk.
>
> Would you take the view that he should be banged up for the
> rest of his natural or "That could be me"?
>
I would expect a punishment comparable to causing a non-road death. I
don't see why those who kill on roads should get lighter sentences, if
any, compared to those who kill elsewhere.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.