From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   BTR1701  wrote:   
   >Jan 25, 2026 at 12:13:32 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman :   
   >>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.   
      
   That's cruel and unusual punishment.   
      
   >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.   
      
   The house is guilty property and gets seized. The parents are arrested   
   upon returning home for having provided the venue.   
      
   >>. . .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)