Tony Blair - A Basket Case?

[OverdueSpy]

edit/ Yeah the poll is loaded. Did that on purpose.

And here I though Tony Blair actually had a lick of sense. Turns out he might not have the sense the Good Lord gave a door-knob. Oh yeah! Lets let the people with emotional imbalances sit on criminal jurys. That will be a fair trial. To me this will just be another way to get criminals off the hook, by appealing that one or more of the jurors was unfit to determine guilt or innocence, due to an emotional imblance. People with emotional problems will not be able to disassociate their individual, and potentially ongoing, problems from the criminal case at hand. Maybe Blair has a multi-personality disorder? Well that would explain a few things.

In an effort to remove the stigma associated with mental illness, the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to lift the ban that currently prevents people with mental health problems from sitting in judgment of their peers, reports the London Times.

Currently, anyone being treated for any of a series of mental health problems, from garden-variety depression to full-blown psychosis, may not serve on a jury.

But Blair’s government wants to send the message that people with mental health problems should be given the same access to ordinary mainstream opportunities as everybody else.

The initiative is part of a series of measures proposed by the Social Exclusion Unit – among them a review of how wackos are treated by the media and sensitivity training for police – intended to prevent discrimination against those with mental illness in the same sense people are currently protected because of race, age, gender, sexuality, religion and physical disabilities

[MURACU]

Of course Blair is a basket case he followed Bush like a little lap dog.

[lumpyporridge]

Hes getting real deperate for electoral support after the local trouncing isn't he

[nihil]

Lots of problems here

1. Social Exclusion Unit................................for that read "total waste of space" consisting of overpaid and underqualified morons. Political correctness is about their only skillset. Hell those are the losers who couldn't even make it into HR.

2. If someone is mentally ill, I am sure that it is a wonderful idea to put them through the trauma of jury service. Bound to improve their condition?

3. In this country most people with a life consider jury service to be a chore and an imposition..........you do it because it is your civic duty, but I cannot think of anyone (including myself) who could not think of something better to do with the time. It is NOT regarded as:

ordinary mainstream opportunities

4. Also:

prevents people with mental health problems from sitting in judgment of their peers

Their "peers" are people with mental health problems?

5. I would personally think that the criteria for selecting jurors should be the same as granting some one a pilot's or gun licence?

I do not believe that this is an attempt to gain votes, more like a spot of intellectional masturbation on the part of the Social Exclusion Unit, in an attempt to justify their jobs?



Mind you, I believe that people are regarded as mentally ill in this country when they actually have a physiological complaint. Perhaps there is a case for revisiting some of the definitions?

[pwaring]

OverdueSpy: Tony Blair is obsessed with popularity and cares about nothing else. Be glad you don't have to put up with his government on a daily basis like nihil and myself have to.

[Relyt]

Some folks have special needs and so at what level of competency do we draw the line in the sand? How would they hold up to the pressures of jury deliberations and the like? Interesting questions for sure. Have to watch and see how this one developes!

cheers

[Tiger Shark]

pwaring:

Tony Blair is obsessed with popularity and cares about nothing else

Ever hear of Bill Clinton? We had the same for 8 years....

The first time I saw Blair I saw the Clintonesque moves, (mannersims, affectations and speech patterns), and I knew that Blair had studied Clinton in order to improve his "appeal"... It worked.... That coupled with the current Conservatives being a bunch of chinless wonders.....

[nihil]

Relyt

Some folks have special needs and so at what level of competency do we draw the line in the sand? How would they hold up to the pressures of jury deliberations and the like? Interesting questions for sure. Have to watch and see how this one developes!

That was a very sympathetic post, and part of my concern as well. What about people who are not mentally ill, just mentally retarded? I think that to serve as a juror you should be able to demonstrate:

1. A fundamental knowledge of the judicial process and the duties and responsibilities of a juror.
2. A certain level of intellect, such that you are capable of understanding what is going on, and forming your own opinion.
3. No evidence of mental or emotional instability that might prejudice your current judgement (previous marriages are allowed )
4. No criminal record.
5. An adequate knowledge of the language in which the trial is being conducted to know what is going on.

Well that's just a few for starters.

Hah! someone mentioned my cousin?.................I have a friend who is currently a senior Press & Publicity Officer for the Conservative party..............he was over in America as a journalist for one of our dailies, and was in Arkansas...........he asked a local, elderly, gentleman what he thought of the new president..............the old gent replied:

"Hard dawg to keep on the porch in the evening".....................

Cheers

[devpon]

nihil, if you use just these two criteria, then where will you find enough people to serve on the jury?

1. A fundamental knowledge of the judicial process and the duties and responsibilities of a juror.
2. A certain level of intellect, such that you are capable of understanding what is going on, and forming your own opinion.

[nihil]

nihil, if you use just these two criteria, then where will you find enough people to serve on the jury?

Slightly off topic, but that is a real problem over here, people just don't want to do it? I can understand why...................it is not adequately reimbursed, and is a legal requirement, unless you can find a good excuse.

You get an attendance allowance and subsistence but it is crap if you are not an employee. Then your employer has to pay you your basic, and claim back the pittance.

As an example, I was discussing a contract with an agent today.............now if I had that contract and had 4 weeks' jury service that would cost me $13,100..................if I did not get the contract because I could not start on time, and nothing else came up..................we are looking at $95,000.........OK those are gross figures, but it is serious money. OK, at a different level I have a friend who is a plasterer (construction industry)..........he would be losing around $88 per day.

As for item #1. this could be taught in a morning's pre trial session.............just stuff like innocent until proven guilty, if the judge says disregard something, you do, and so on.

Item #2 is a little more difficult, but most people who are of jury service age have educational qualifications (grade school levels?) and those who are disadvantaged would almost certainly be receiving some kind of social welfare support over here.

I realise that you are raising the question in a humourous vein, but I do see this as a real issue? I believe that a lot of trials are determined by unscrupulous lawyers manipulating weak minded juries. Not exactly the best way to serve "justice"?

Hey, I spent 4 weeks at jury service and didn't get selected once...............I wonder why?...........they don't like professionals............we see through them.