IN this era of Guantanamo Bay, where innocent as well as guilty can vanish for indefinite periods, we should be thankful for two British institutions.
One is the Habeas Corpus Act which requires anyone accused to be brought to justice visibly, and soon. The other is the jury system in which (as in the magistrates courts) guilt or innocence is decided by the accused's fellow citizens.
David Quarrie (Letters, November 22) found that much of his fortnight's jury service was wasted time. That was partly because the judge rejected one case, and the defendants pleaded guilty in another. Neither of those circumstances could have been known in advance.
Genuine time-wasting must certainly be reduced. Jury members may have left important work elsewhere to do their public duty in court.
We need a greater awareness of the responsibility which members of the public take on when deciding the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens.
Juries try only about one per cent of the criminal cases which begin in the magistrates court. That one per cent tends to be serious cases, in which the defendant has pleaded not guilty. What a responsibility.
Juries should be respected for what they undertake and encouraged by every means to reach right verdicts.
Arthur Robinson,
Brecksfield,
York.
Updated: 10:03 Thursday, November 25, 2004
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article