From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Jan 25, 2026 at 12:13:32 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman""    
   wrote:   
      
   > BTR1701  wrote:   
   >> Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, Rhino :   
   >   
   >>> I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of   
   >>> scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report   
   >>> said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction   
   >>> would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be   
   >>> for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria   
   >>> look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap).   
   >>> The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.   
   >   
   >> Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up   
   >> as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to   
   >> accommodate it".   
   >   
   >> That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal   
   >> law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the   
   >> presumption of innocence.  That's too much of a pain in the ass for the   
   >> government. Unless they caught you actually selling someone drugs, it   
   >> was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a   
   >> reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer, so they created the rebuttable   
   >> presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of   
   >> drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling   
   >> drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.   
   >   
   >> Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where   
   >> the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And   
   >> for some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.   
   >   
   >> This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials   
   >> take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because   
   >> the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing   
   >> the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains   
   >> the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions,   
   >> that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government   
   >> colluding to violate it.   
   >   
   > These are excellent points. I always liked this one. Contraband is   
   > found. The person who brought the contraband isn't there, or police   
   > aren't aware of who had. That's ok. Anyone near the contraband gets   
   > arrested and is presumed to have had possession of it if not ownership.   
      
   Or the plethora of body cam police videos on YouTube where cops respond to a   
   house party and find alcohol and kids that are underage, but the kids were   
   smart enough to put their cups and bottles down before the cops got inside and   
   none of them are actually in possession of the booze. So they charge everyone   
   in the house with "constructive possession" of the alcohol, even if you're   
   upstairs in a bedroom with that hot girl you've been hitting on and you just   
   managed to get past the bra hook and are about to see the promised land and   
   there's no alcohol anywhere in your vicinity.   
      
   COPS/D.A.s: "It's too hard for us to prove a case against everyone so we   
   should be able to just ditch the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of   
   innocence to make our jobs easier."   
      
   COURTS: Sounds good to me! Proceed.   
      
   > Everybody is clearly guilty in a What's Up, Doc? (1972) scenario in   
   > which all charactors had possession of one of the contraband-containing   
   > plaid overnight bags in error at various points in the story.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)