69 million page views

Expect to see more trial by judge rather than Jury

Reader comment on item: Judges Repair the Mistakes of Juries

Submitted by Nick Good (South Africa), May 3, 2006 at 06:10

Daniel Pipes wrote -

Neither of these cases was satisfactorily resolved, suggesting that the standard application of criminal law does not suffice for judging terrorists.

Indeed; so it was with the British as a result of 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland. Jury trials were abandoned for the trial of terrorist offences. Since 1972 jury trial has been waived and a judge has been used in lieu of a jury to determine guilt; this because of intimidation of jurors, by both Loyalist and Republican terrorists.

These are known as the Diplock courts after Lord Diplock's report commissioned by the British government recommended this approach.

Germane to the war against Jihadis - Diplock courts have been used once in Northern Ireland for a Jihadi Islamic terrorist trial which resulted in a conviction and a 6 year jail sentence as recently as December 2005. An Algerian - Abbas Boutrab, originally arrested over immigration offences but found to have terrorist links...

Police later found computer discs with downloaded bomb-making instructions. Boutrab had denied the terror charges.

Crown Court judge Mr Justice Weatherup said the information could have been of use to terrorists.

He also said that modifications made to the circuitry on a cassette player indicated intent.


Read the whole thing.

I suspect, because of the issue of jury intimidation, both tacit and active, that we will see more 'Diplock style' courts used for Islamic terrorists outside of Northern Ireland in the rest of the UK, as well in other liberal democratic jurisdictions that have traditionally used jury trial.

Related to this is an article on Jury trials vis-à-vis using judges by Richard Dawkins (British biologist, evolutionary theorist, popular science writer and holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the UK's Oxford University) Dawkins comes down squarely in favour of trial by judges....

Trial by jury must be one of the most conspicuously bad good ideas anyone ever had. Its devisers can hardly be blamed. They lived before the principles of statistical sampling and experimental design had been worked out. They weren’t scientists. Let me explain using an analogy. And if, at the end, somebody objects to my argument on the grounds that humans aren’t herring gulls, I’ll have failed to get my point across....


Dawkins concludes...

Would you bet on two independent juries reaching the same verdict in the Louise Woodward case? Could you imagine even one other jury reaching the same verdict in the O.J.Simpson case? Two judges, on the other hand, seem to me rather likely to score well on the concordance test. And should I be charged with a serious crime here’s how I want to be tried. If I know myself to be guilty, I’ll go with the loose cannon of a jury, the more ignorant, prejudiced and capricious the better. But if I am innocent, and the ideal of multiple independent decision-takers is unavailable, please give me a judge. Preferably Judge Hiller Zobel.

It's worth reading the whole article.

Dawkins is a fellow who I respect and admire for his science writing, indeed the general lucidity of his writing as well as his is willingness to challenge religous superstision and point out thier dangers; however I don't care for his political views. That said; together with what I know about the poor levels of critical thinking skills in the general population, as well as how suggestible folks can be, I think Dawkins makes a very strong case.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (15) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Dhimmification of Juries [56 words]chswMay 14, 2006 12:0145577
Judge v. jury makes no difference; besides, it'd be unconstitutional [253 words]Jinan SafwatMay 10, 2006 20:5345316
Killing of Jews is acceptable to these juries [42 words]Michael SavittMay 10, 2006 11:1445268
Courage's judges against cowered jury [42 words]f.shakkiMay 8, 2006 21:3745059
Missing the point about jury trials [458 words]J. Keen HollandMay 8, 2006 20:0045056
And if the punishment is widely considered inappropriate? [36 words]Michael AndreyakovichMay 3, 2006 20:5444823
Big Fish - Little FIsh [244 words]rickMay 3, 2006 12:5644797
Judges and Juries [61 words]Herbert EiteneierMay 3, 2006 07:3844785
Disease? [16 words]Robert LynnMay 3, 2006 18:0644785
Judges and Juries [26 words]Herbert EiteneierMay 5, 2006 02:0044785
Re: Why? [155 words]Robert LynnMay 7, 2006 04:0644785
Expect to see more trial by judge rather than Jury [575 words]Nick GoodMay 3, 2006 06:1044783
Terrorism Cases - Military Tribunals [59 words]Mark RothMay 3, 2006 05:1944781
Yes to Military Tribunals [58 words]Jim WoodsMay 10, 2006 10:5144781
Civilian Courts/Military Tribunals [112 words]Mark RothMay 10, 2006 15:3544781

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)