Tony Blair - A Basket Case?

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Lots of problems here :rolleyes:

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:

Quote:

---

ordinary mainstream opportunities

---

4. Also:

Quote:

---

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?

:eek:

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?

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. :(

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

pwaring:

Quote:

---

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..... :rolleyes:

Relyt

Quote:

---

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 :D )
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"..................... :p

Cheers

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.
:D

Quote:

---

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.

:eek:

nihil , I agree, it is a real issue over here in the US also. I was thinking the same thing, if you go by those two criteria, then all you will be left with is a small pool of qualified people that will be called over and over again. Then what do you have? A proffesional juror. As far as justice served, no need to look further than some(alot?) of the cases in the US.

Devpon,

I think that the problems lie with our legal systems? both are based on the concept of contention, and of "winning" NOT on determining the truth and meting out justice?

In France, for example, you appear before three "examining magistrates" first. If they determine that there is a case to answer, you go before a court of three judges and nine jurors.

I think that too many minor crimes get sent to jury trial, certainly over here.

Given the flaws in our system, and get back towards the topic :D , it probably wouldn't make much difference if all the jurors were mentally ill?

Another problem is the right of the prosecution and defence to object to 6 jurors each, that means you need 24!

I still have concerns over the stress on people who are not in good shape, particularly as it is not voluntary over here.

Not to mention that the people that have a good understanding of judicial proceedings here in America, are themselves being prosecuted. Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, Any Enron Officer. :)

Requiring your jurors to have a good command of the language being used will rule out probably 70% of the Democratic voters from Jury duty over here too. ;)

Seriously though, everyone's Judicial system is messed up enough without throwing the mentally disturbed into the mix. Yes. a juror that is schitzofrenic (sp) may feel a sympathetic bond with a guy that kills a police officer because they were "out ot get him." Then again if the juror suffers from severe depression they may decide that this same person would be better off dead, mimicing thier desires for committing suicide.

In reply to nihils point about jury trials being about trivial offences, this does happen.

I suspect strictly speaking I am breaking the law here (as you aren't supposed to say anything), but when I did Jury service we were asked to sit on a case of someone up for 'attempted theft of a piano'.

Turns out, this was some guy who attempted, and failed to flog a piano from the rented accommodation he was living in.
Value of piano - about $70 :D As soon as the prosecution witness turned up, he changed his plea to guilty.
Apparently, you are always advised to plead not guilty, because there is a very good chance the witness won't turn up - after all, why should they bother?

However, it cost me a lot more than $70, and I was twiddling my thumbs for most of the rest of the two weeks, as I didn't get selected again :mad: