Jurors are chosen at random and shouldn't have to suffer doing their civic duty. Judges know there is an element of risk to their profession.
Here is a good explanation as to the problems with the Special Criminal Court. Interesting to see that there has not been one complaint about intimidation of jurors which could be fixed anyway if there was by just requiring 2/3rd of a jury for conviction.
https://www.thejournal.ie/ge16-election-2016-ireland-fact-check-special-criminal-court-2594422-Feb2016/
Given the increasingly partisan rethoric persued by ffg (check out the recent dublin south election),its inevitable,this partisanship will eventually find its way into judge appointments etc
May be off topic,for a differnet thread mind,but massive safegaurds need inserting in the constitution surronding this issue and judges/appointing senior gaurds
To be fair I think times have changed and it's drug gangs that it's needed for now.
CAB will get the "Good Republicans".
Hmmmm....I wonder where the myth of 'intimidation' is coming from?
Answers on a postcard please.
quote extract from above.
We are told that a non-jury court is preferable because of intimidation of jurors. To the best of my knowledge, such intimidation remains anecdotal. Where is the evidence that intimidation of jurors is allowing criminals to escape justice? End quote.
Eh……. I’m sure the criminals have detailed records of all intimidation events.
I’m equally sure that it is in a publicly accessible place like libraries and social centres and that it’s vouched and signed off on.
Would ya ever……
I suspect it this kind of unbacked up, 'feeling in my water' type musings that feeds the myth.
I personally would not want to be a juror on an IRA or drug gang case. Unless I see evidence of it being used incorrectly I'll take the more pragmatic approach of the SCC.
I guess that those who run in those circles would love the general public to believe that intimidation in these cases is a myth.
Why would you when the myths are so strong? That is the purpose of the mythmaking.
*Question about the Tom Brady article which I think is part of the hysteria around this.
I have been called to jury service twice and on both occasions I was not told in advance what case I would be a juror on. Yet he says people are not turning up because of intimidation.
Is the point he is making that their is random intimidation going on? How do you intimidate jurors when they haven't even been appointed to your case???
Surely the point is people are not turning up because they believe (because of the myths) that they will be intimidated.
This would account for the fact he outlines later, that most of these stories are anecdotal and not backed by data.
They had a jury for the Bell case and look what happened.
It's a preventative measure and unless I see a viable alternative I think it should remain.
Bell was being tried in NI, and 'one' member of the jury reported that something was 'said'.
That may have just been a chancer, but the trial went ahead after precautionary measures were taken. Same thing could happen in any case.
You need to look at it from the jurors point of view. Bell, I assume , was a member of the IRA. An organisation that murdered even more people than the BA. They have the means and the form to murder anyone that gets in their way.
I wouldn't assume it was a "chancer" in that situation.
How many jurors have the IRA killed, hurt, or intimidated?
Any data?
Or are we in myth territory again?
P.S. The reason I think it was likely to be a 'chancer' is that the intimidation didn't continue, was singular and the trial proceeded and reached a conclusion.
"The IRA murdered more people than the British Army" - I'd like to see the verifiable data to back this nugget of info up jh, will I put on the kettle whilst you go fetch it?
How could they have since we have the SCC? The opportunity isn't there thank god.
I thought that was generally accepted. I'll google it now.
Now we pivot back to the south, when you were happy to use a case in the north because you thought it made your point.
Ok jh79, I understand. You just want to engage in some more mythmaking at whatever cost to your credibility.
Have at it.
Found this. Is it accurate?
Well no, no it's not acceptable at all. Your using a specific geographic location, during a specific period of time to try and justify your poorly thought out post.
The British army are responsible for millions of innocent deaths across the globe, from Australia to Africa, India to Ireland.
Some Saturday morning light reading material.
For God sake of course i was talking about Ireland.
We're talking 'bout the bad IRA who were fightin the good BA, McMurphy, not the good IRA who were fightin the bad BA...rite! 😁
Just facts Francie. They killed more. Justify all you like but the facts remain.
Public representatives like Charlie Flanagan (FG), Pat Rabbitte (Lab), Joe Costello (Lab) in 2009 have all questioned the use of the Special Criminal Court for criminal gangs. Here is Charlie Flanagan on juror intimidation:
[quote]During a Dáil debate on 3 July 2009, Fine Gael’s then Justice spokesperson Charlie Flanagan criticised the proposed use of the SCC for gangland crime:
While the use of the Special Criminal Court for crime of a subversive nature is a measure that Fine Gael supports, nonetheless we must ensure that solid, empirical evidence makes the case for referring trials involving gangland members to this court.
Removing the jury from a trial involving an indictable offence must be a measure of last resort.
We are told that a non-jury court is preferable because of intimidation of jurors. To the best of my knowledge, such intimidation remains anecdotal. Where is the evidence that intimidation of jurors is allowing criminals to escape justice?[/quote]
I didn't justify anything jh. I was just laughing at you getting caught out again being selective.
They still murdered more all the same as the link shows.
In the context of juror intimidation and the SCC, the level of IRA violence cannot be ignored.
I'm sure you are correct.
Still though the IRA killed more than the BA during their lifetime.
Objectively speaking they were a significant threat to the people of Ireland and that justified the SCC.
The drugs gangs have taken their place now and the SCC is still needed.
Well, if you don't want to be, you probably won't be selected. Clearly you have no idea how jury selection works. In the case of the Central Criminal Court (where I was called for jury service), what happens is that there are several hundred people called and wait in a room where names are selected at random where you then have to go up to the court where the Prosecution and Defence lawyers select or reject each individual who has been randomly selected. I was called twice in a week - one case was a murder case, the other was a rape case. In the murder case, one person told the judge that they lived in the same area and knew of the family of the victim and they were released from Jury Service. I wasn't selected for Jury Service.
If they think intimidation or bias might be a problem (such as in the Limerick crime trials), they move them to a different area (in this case Dublin). I know someone who served on that jury who didn't wasn't troubled by intimidation.
lol , now that folks is how you deflect , right out of the party play book
How was I being selective? It's a thread on an Irish forum about an Irish political party that was also the political wing of the IRA.
What has India or the Boer War got to do with it? ( I know that wasn't you just pointing out the obvious context here)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
