• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Criminal Law in Common Law Systems

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I kindly need the take of Common law experts (jurists but also connoisseurs) that can tell me what they think of Criminal Law in CLSs...like UK, US, Canada...etc...

1) Do you think the monocratic judge should have more power than the jury?
2) Do you believe that the jury should be replaced by a Court formed (even partially) by professional jurists/ judges?
3) Do you think a Penal Code would help judges determine the penalty?
4) Do you think Non-juridic sciences like psychiatry and criminology should enter the courtrooms to help the jury understand the culprit better? (Like in Nikolas Cruz's case, for example)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I kindly need the take of Common law experts (jurists but also connoisseurs) that can tell me what they think of Criminal Law in CLSs...like UK, US, Canada...etc...
We need somebody from Scotland to comment! :D
Scotland still holds to ancient common law for so many criminal offences.

England and Wales only follows Common Law in some of the most serious and least serious crimes, like Murder and Vagrancy, and over the last 50 years legislation has written many more clear definitions of crimes.

So now most of our crimes are defined and fall in to either more-serious (Indictable) or less-serious offences.

So far Our Crown Courts which hear indictable offences are guided by Judges, with a jury of lay people hearing the case and bringing in a verdict, but in situation where the law is fixed, Judges can override this completely and instruct a jury in how they should find a case.

1) Do you think the monocratic judge should have more power than the jury?
Yes.
2) Do you believe that the jury should be replaced by a Court formed (even partially) by professional jurists/ judges?
Yes. In our cities some courts and cases have been controlled solely by Stipends and these work well and seem to have consistency. We could build upon those.
3) Do you think a Penal Code would help judges determine the penalty?
Yes. We use one at present for many offences....... a 'tariff' system
4) Do you think Non-juridic sciences like psychiatry and criminology should enter the courtrooms to help the jury understand the culprit better? (Like in Nikolas Cruz's case, for example)
Only as Defences, and only as witnesses.
They shouldn't get to produce verdicts, just evidence.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
@oldbadger Thank you so much, dear.
Straight and direct answers, as it should be.:)


Only as Defences, and only as witnesses.
They shouldn't get to produce verdicts, just evidence.
Well...I do agree. I just think that if I were a procurator (in Italy called Public Ministry), I would need a very very thorough psychiatric expertise to understand the psyche of the defendants.

Speaking of a very famous case, the Meredith Kercher's case...well...a psychiatric expertise on Knox and Sollecito would have helped me a lot.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@oldbadger Thank you so much, dear.
Straight and direct answers, as it should be.:)
Thank you :)


Well...I do agree. I just think that if I were a procurator (in Italy called Public Ministry), I would need a very very thorough psychiatric expertise to understand the psyche of the defendants.
Yes. Absolutely.
We, none of us, have expertise in everything if anything. The problem is that many 'experts' don't, either.
So Judges (and juries) need to listen to more than one expert witness. In England I have known 'Expert Witnesses' who were absolute imposts, working the system for lots of expenses.
Psychiatry is one of the least exact sciences there is....... (sadly) full of quacks imo.

Speaking of a very famous case, the Meredith Kercher's case...well...a psychiatric expertise on Knox and Sollecito would have helped me a lot.
I remember reading about it.
Cannot remember the final outcome..... were Knox and Sollecito innocent or guilty in the end?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
This is what Amanda Knox went through, the series of trials, and the judgments (or verdicts, which in Italy are called sentences)

Court of Assizes ( Perugia) : Amanda sentenced to jail ---> Appeal

Court of Assizes of Appeal ( Perugia) : Amanda acquitted ---> Appeal to Cassation

Court of Cassation (Italy SC, Rome): the Court nullifies the verdict of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and renvoys the trial to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence

Court of Assizes of Appeal ( Florence): Amanda sentenced to jail again ---> Appeal to Cassation

Court of Cassation: definitively acquits Amanda, nullifying the previous judgments.

 

Saint Frankenstein

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Premium Member
4) Do you think Non-juridic sciences like psychiatry and criminology should enter the courtrooms to help the jury understand the culprit better? (Like in Nikolas Cruz's case, for example)
They're already there. It's called forensic psychiatry and psychology.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
They're already there. It's called forensic psychiatry and psychology.

Yes. I meant that these professionals do not actively participate in determiming the apt penalty.
Let us not confuse penal procedure with penal science.
Speaking of the Cruz case...I only see cameras...not psychiatrists trying to help this boy.

 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Premium Member
Yes. I meant that these professionals do not actively participate in determiming the apt penalty.
Let us not confuse penal procedure from penal science.
Speaking of the Cruz case...I only see cameras...not psychiatrists trying to help this boy.

Some people are past the point of being able to be helped. He passed that point when he decided to gun down some kids at school.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I kindly need the take of Common law experts (jurists but also connoisseurs) that can tell me what they think of Criminal Law in CLSs...like UK, US, Canada...etc...

1) Do you think the monocratic judge should have more power than the jury?
It depends upon the situation.
A judge should be able to over-ride a jury guilty verdict.
But not a not-guilty verdict.
2) Do you believe that the jury should be replaced by a Court formed (even partially) by professional jurists/ judges?
Judges are already professionals.
But they should be held to a higher standard than they are (here).
Professional jurors make sense, but we'd need to ensure
independence from government influence.
3) Do you think a Penal Code would help judges determine the penalty?
4) Do you think Non-juridic sciences like psychiatry and criminology should enter the courtrooms to help the jury understand the culprit better? (Like in Nikolas Cruz's case, for example)
Tofu wrapped in bacon.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Judges are already professionals.
But they should be held to a higher standard than they are (here).
Professional jurors make sense, but we'd need to ensure independence from government influence.
For example...here we do not have a jury, we have the Court of Assizes formed by 2 professional judges and 6 lay people (let's say like the American jurors)...but de facto the 2 judges do influence the verdict votations, a lot.

Tofu wrapped in bacon.
lol...what?:p
 
Top