18

19 comments

Yeah... I am not in favor of not having proper trials for the accused.

Jurors do not automatically mean a “proper” trial. Usually, professional judges are actually better trained, educated and impartial (given that the justice system of the country isn’t corrupted… which is the case in the UK).

I actually have no words, how can she live with herself!?

Why is it bad? Jurors are not impartial, and usually make rape cases more difficult to bear for the victim. They’re more likely than a judge to victim blame.

I think jurors are an outdated system, actually…

Just having one judge be the decider isn't great either. I'm intrigued by the idea of basically having professional juries made up of people who have shown they understand key legal concepts, but having multiple people make the decision is important.

Well that’s how the justice system works in many other cases (and countries). In France, some lawyers advice victims to not go on trial for rape to avoid jurors, and instead go on trial for sexual assault only, where they can be assured to be judged by a professional judge.

A professional trained judge is usually better than x random citizens. Especially as judge will usually be educated women… Of course sometimes judges fuck up, and that’s why you can appeal.

I feel like the outrage is made by people not really knowing how the justice system usually works. Would I be a rape victim going on trial, I would definitely prefer a professional judge.

Given Nicola Sturgeon's record, do you think the judges who will hear rape cases will be fair to the victims? Or will they be her handpicked pro- mra pro-trans pro-pervert crew?

[–] SecondSkin 3 points Edited

This ^

And like the article says the judge trials for sex crimes-and sex crimes only- is the side-with-the-dictator approach.

There are other types of criminal or civil trials that benefit from judge only system, the Depp/Heard case would be an obvious example-UK judge rules in favour of the sun (so he believed her account in some instances) and US jury really don’t grasp the burden of proof needing to show she lied, as opposed to prove she was telling the truth. It became him versus her, and who was felt more credible, instead of can he prove she lied and maliciously damaged him by doing so. The UK judge understood the legal concept, jurors don’t.

But that’s very different from sexual assault crimes. As the article outlines. And it feels more misogynistic when it’s only sexual assault crimes being changed.

[–] hmimperialtortie cats plz 2 points

It fits with everything else. Women who need the Edinburgh rape crisis centre being “re-educated” . Women who object to TIMs in their rooms at hospital being told “there are no men here”. Sturgeon seems to hate women as virulently as anyone can.

Doesn’t the UK have an independent Justice system? I don’t think the government choses the judges… does it?

The First Minister can't hand pick judges - judges are vetted & recommended by an independent board in order to protect the legal system from corruption & political interference.

I know she isn't, but sometimes I think Sturgeon must be a TiM.

She’s a Sturgeon who identifies as a Mermaid. Pronouns are Loch/Ness.

Seems kinda fishy if you ask me.