Expect to see more trial by judge rather than Jury

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.

---

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".