jury trials

[dude2014]

Do not have a constitutional right? Reminds me of Faris Al Rawi and the ‘No right to privacy’ cow manure. Wake up Trinidad and Tobago. Mukhdhar for the Chief Justice.

Has ganga been made legal? Probably smoke some? Dont Know .............
Seven Million? Take me and bigan and bluesclues and the rest of us when yuh go palancing next. Is we moneh.

[desifemlove]

Dat is real history u dust off there.

he introduced jury trials into the English common law system, which is why we have it now. but then there are no "god-given rights". the only rights are those provided by other people.

but yuh not very bright, are you? you generally don't get the bases of these type of discussions. haha.

[desifemlove]

@desinoob... ive explained this before in the religion thread. So i wont do so again here except to point you to the facts posted in this link. Which should be a sufficient guide for ur learning


http://www.christian-attorney.net/jury_ ... bible.html

Right to trial by jury is a democractic right, where the laws of democracy were revealed to paul by God, where paul is a representative and symbol of the church. The history of the formation of democracy is in the bible.

In short.. God gave democracy to the church, and the church was given power to force the monarchy to surrender it's power to give it to you, the citizens to prevent tyranny.

God did this because the only people deserving of being kings were prophets. Thus if there were no prophets on the earth, there would be no kings. And God empowered the church to enshrine these rights across the earth. Reducing the monarchy to a mere figurehead. A mascott of tradition. He did this to block their claim to 'the divine right of kings' because they were claiming kingship based on blood lineage. But the real requirement for kingship was to possess divinity and having true communion with God's spirit. Not just blood descendance which every first born son of a king wanted to claim, and second son and bastard child would kill to replace.

How willing do you think the monarch was to surrender that great power of being judge jury and executioner?

#henry_shmenry

Many people fought and died for you to have this right today. To protect you. The laws handed down to you in democracy were well crafted to safeguard u EVEN IF you were governed by criminals and corruption. It is simply that now they are realizing that and trying to get those things out of the way that will make them your elite masters.

You feel you can make law better than God? Hahahaha
Lol all law and all hiearchy of authority on this earth is mimic clone of the heavenly hierarchy. That is why you will find that i seem to understand law so well with only basic real legal background. Because i know the source of man's law, i know the image it imitates, and thus i know all law, it's purpose and reason.

U guys have not a clue. Not even studying law in university, not even having silk means u understand the truth and wisdom that brought the law u have today. it is like crafting a language. Who is genius enough? Trust me.. u have no clue. So allyuh feel allyuh could make law better than what God give you through the prophets and the church.. well what can i say... go ahead if thats what you want. U will learn.

no god i know of ever came down and said what rights people have.....

only humans said people cannot kill you, or rape you, or steal from you, or torture you, or make you a slave. God himself condoned slavery in his holy books, ent?

tell your psuedo-politics or fringe Christianity elsewhere....or learn actual legal-historical facts, or the nature (,i.e. non-existent) of "natural/God-given" rights.

[bluesclues]

^My bad. Didnt know u was alive in jesus' and paul time.

What u need madame, is to do a proper history of the church. Church has protected every man woman and child including atheist and gay rights for centuries. And also led the entire current structure u see here today including the seperation of powers of church and state. The law structured as such so that it cannot be removed..

Hear nah.. lol
If they could remove the right to trial by jury by a 2/3rds majority(for the record that is not enough to get it removed) then they could remove all your other rights. Heck they could just legalize the ability for heads of state to assassinate anyone they want and itll be legal. They wont have to hide and do it. Welcome pandoradise.

[bluesclues]

The last generation failed this country by not being vigilant on what government was doing. By not defending their future. This is y allyuh sufferin now. High usd, low currency value, high price everyting.
Just remember. I am shielded from all the decisions of government eh. So i am simply advising you all.. to listen what i say and defend your rights.

End.

[desifemlove]

Your own link said there is no link between the Bible and jury trials. sorry, my own opinion stands, neither is inherently better than the other. that's my view, your view is just on speculation, little else.

[bluesclues]

Your own link said there is no link between the Bible and jury trials. sorry, my own opinion stands, neither is inherently better than the other. that's my view, your view is just on speculation, little else.

The page contains sufficient links to relevant passages in the bible which show that the democratic system began and was introduced by God through Paul in biblical times around the time right after Jesus' death, or A.D.

Thus though england may have chosen a number of jurors, the system of jurors was in itself a part of the democratic system's interpretation. If governing was to be by the people and for the people, then the 'people' would also have to be involved in the judgement process for criminal cases and those cases which truly require a consensus of opinion from various unbiased participants with their various perspectives. I wouldnt under-estimate the selection of the number to be 12 jurors either. as this would have been well calculated considering a host of butterfly effects as well as psychological factors. In otherwords the philosophy of democracy, the philosophy of law creation and distributing power was applied. The main goal is to prevent the system from being run with tyrrany or under a single dictator as it was before with the monarch. Because man in his judgement is erred. And unable to rationally handle power. The power seduces them to evil. A prophet would not be so easily seduced away from the guidance of a God that he 'knows'.

My only point. Is just as it was given to you it is fine and well thought out. Trying to tinker with it right now is not wise. removing that right from statement in the constitution denies the public participation in the criminal affairs of the state. As long as i have made that clear? And u understand what it might take to have it reinstated if the desire from the public arises. Then i have done my part.

Citizens need to also participate in the legislative process. Keep up with what government is doing. Call your local councillors and MPs office and vouch for or disapprove of certain legislations the party want to put forward. Let them know what your community's position is on matters. As it is they just do what they want. They dont even ask you anymore, they just do it. Democracy is slowly slipping away in this country. But if u act now you could preserve the little freedoms u still have. Cuz Once u give them up, u never really get them back.

[bluesclues]

If i give u an excercise to mush out in ur head.

Lets say that next year january, the pnm want to put forward a bill extending their term for 100 years. They have enough representatives in the unc who they already arrange with to cross the table during the voting of the legislation. This means, the legislation will pass. U were informed through the media 24hrs beforehand and the legislation did get voted on and passed.

Tell me what process you will use to undo that? As a normal citizen? Or how would u have stopped it?

[bluesclues]

The true number for a jury system by democractic implementation is actually the entire adult population. Ideally, everyone is supposed to be part of the jury. But that was not feasible because of obvious physical limitations. But now technology can be used to make everyone a member of the jury.... if they wanted to. Allowing you to view and vote on cases from the privacy of ur own home. It is currently your right in essence to have a say. But they just chose a small number they can accommodate that is supposed to represent the views and participation of the 'complete' or entire population. But either way, the word 'democracy' itself, means and has incorporated from it's root, that a jury system must exist.

[desifemlove]

loool...your article said that's it's not an expressly Biblicaly stated right. and it said "possibly" 12 came from the twelve apostles. you're making a tenuous claim as an absolute fact. and you trying to prove this as absolute fact is pretty moot.

[bluesclues]

loool...your article said that's it's not an expressly Biblicaly stated right. and it said "possibly" 12 came from the twelve apostles. you're making a tenuous claim as an absolute fact. and you trying to prove this as absolute fact is pretty moot.

Well im sure ppl who understand english understand what i said. Nor am i even guessing.

To try and further simplify what i said..

the intention of democracy and it's interpretation for the creation of laws for distributing power naturally means the public must be involved in the legislative as well as criminal justice system where it has to do with taking away the right to freedom of a fellow citizen. The jury system is thus not a separate thing from democracy, it is an arm and embodiement of what democracy is and is meant to achieve.

Also i dont have to guess on y the number 12 was chosen, as the royal and scholastic academy wouldve have also been paying attention to mystic symbolism.. the number 12 symbolizes completion/completeness/perfection in mysticism. Thus 12 is a significant number in at least one aspect as it is meant to represent the views of the 'complete' society. 12 jurors thus symbolize and speak for the entire society in the court room where the entire population cannot be accommodated for each and every case. And no, it is not just a coincidence that they chose the number 12 and it also is the number that symbolizes completion. They knew what they were doing. Much more than i can say for the cj and his ambitions.

The bible doesnt have to expressly state the details of the democratic system' because it has provided the general design and intention of the system. otherwise it would be a MUCH larger book than it already is. However, the church would have had those details, just they werent included in the bible. But either way, the church has undeniable claim to democracy, and your current constitutional rights and those of all democratic countries.

Interpret this banana sharing system.

There are 11 people in a room with you. I walk into a room with 12 bananas and ask u to share it up equally among yourselves.

Do i have to now detail what 'sharing equally' means? If i ask you to distribute 10 bag of rice among10 families, it can be naturally interpretted that each family would get 1 bag. Giving any 1 family 2 bag while another get 0 bags is corruption.


Really, i know the links are there, but i bet you failed to read the one thing u were expected to read..

Corinthians.

Lets see how good your reading and comprehension is. Post the passage in corinthians which defines the democratic system as it was to be implemented.

Im not going to go into democratic system and law interpretation with you because well.. i dont think ur cultured enough to understand how interpretation plays a part in our legal systems.

[desifemlove]

No, but I understand that your argument is based on speculation, and wishing sheit from nothing. your own article didn't provide anything in the affirmative, but was speculative at best lol.

fact remains that jury trial vs bench trial has been a contentious point for centuries, and it's disingenuous for Khan or whoever to assert that jury trials are better when it's his opinion and his opinion is not a fact. just like what you are doing, and purporting it to be fact. and then explain why the Romans were democratic? or the medievals like the Anglo-Saxons, Visigoths, Kievan Rus', Byzantines, Franks, Normans, Plantagenets, Capetians, and all up to the Reformation and beyond? How come it took 2000 years of Christian history to filter down?

nah, i'll read revisionist Christian theorising elsewhere please...

[bluesclues]

It is not opinion. That, is YOUR opinion lol
Why does every democratic country have jury trials then?

Because all the leaders of the world agreed to a speculative philosophy?

Lets just face it. To those of us with illumination, this suggestion by the cj comes backed with no genius or wisdom. For him or anyone to think that he is so clever that he can suggest this as a solution to the current caseload.. is laughable. U really think that his suggestion is formed with greater knowledge than the original interpretters and penners of the system? U really think the cj so smart that this solution can be accepted as tho its the solution to some problem plaguing mankind for centuries? Even though it goes against the grain and weakens democracy .. for what.?.. to make his job easier?

There are a 100,000 arguments supporting jury trials as a right within a democratic system that cannot be denied. That is why it stands. And that is why it is so hard to get rid of it. Because the penners knew that removing it would weaken democracy. So it was structured in such a way that it could not be altered in secret. As removing it is viewed as a step towards tyranny and the installation of a dictator. It is an alarm for the public to hear when government goes on the attack. 'There is a thief entering your house, release the hounds'

[desifemlove]

It is not opinion. That, is YOUR opinion lol
Why does every democratic country have jury trials then?

Because all the leaders of the world agreed to a speculative philosophy?

Lets just face it. To those of us with illumination, this suggestion by the cj comes backed with no genius or wisdom. For him or anyone to think that he is so clever that he can suggest this as a solution to the current caseload.. is laughable. U really think that his suggestion is formed with greater knowledge than the original interpretters and penners of the system? U really think the cj so smart that this solution can be accepted as tho its the solution to some problem plaguing mankind for centuries? Even though it goes against the grain and weakens democracy .. for what.?.. to make his job easier?

There are a 100,000 arguments supporting jury trials as a right within a democratic system that cannot be denied. That is why it stands. And that is why it is so hard to get rid of it. Because the penners knew that removing it would weaken democracy. So it was structured in such a way that it could not be altered in secret. As removing it is viewed as a step towards tyranny and the installation of a dictator. It is an alarm for the public to hear when government goes on the attack. 'There is a thief entering your house, release the hounds'

every country? no many do it, it's not really intrinsic to democracy.

and yes, your opinion. there are many factors affecting a viable criminal justice system. which penners are these? if these penners are smart, they would know that any notion is up for debate, or not. seems suggestions by christian websites, or your own bandwagon fallacy thinking, is key here.

[bluesclues]

It is not opinion. That, is YOUR opinion lol
Why does every democratic country have jury trials then?

Because all the leaders of the world agreed to a speculative philosophy?

Lets just face it. To those of us with illumination, this suggestion by the cj comes backed with no genius or wisdom. For him or anyone to think that he is so clever that he can suggest this as a solution to the current caseload.. is laughable. U really think that his suggestion is formed with greater knowledge than the original interpretters and penners of the system? U really think the cj so smart that this solution can be accepted as tho its the solution to some problem plaguing mankind for centuries? Even though it goes against the grain and weakens democracy .. for what.?.. to make his job easier?

There are a 100,000 arguments supporting jury trials as a right within a democratic system that cannot be denied. That is why it stands. And that is why it is so hard to get rid of it. Because the penners knew that removing it would weaken democracy. So it was structured in such a way that it could not be altered in secret. As removing it is viewed as a step towards tyranny and the installation of a dictator. It is an alarm for the public to hear when government goes on the attack. 'There is a thief entering your house, release the hounds'

every country? no many do it, it's not really intrinsic to democracy.

and yes, your opinion. there are many factors affecting a viable criminal justice system. which penners are these? if these penners are smart, they would know that any notion is up for debate, or not. seems suggestions by christian websites, or your own bandwagon fallacy thinking, is key here.

well ok. Go ahead and debate whether the public has a right to participate in the judgement of criminals within their own democratic society. No wait. I forget this is republic of chief justice ivor archie judge jury executioner SC.

What really is key is the books i had access to that covered the history of these matters. Books ppl might pay a million dollars just to borrow for the night. Books i no longer have access to but read and remembered well nonetheless.

Frankly speaking, really, ur just too simple to understand the complexity of human and societal law systems. The history and evolution of these systems. Their interpretations, or their source of inspiration. It is not something the average person or even lawyer would ever really have crossed in his/her lifetime. The subtle art of creation of law and systems of governance is guided by a much more powerful source than any individual nation. We of the western world should be evolved enough to defend our democracy. And that means to maintain our involvement in ALL OF the affairs of government.

[desifemlove]

haha..i'm advanced to know there is more to democracy than jury trials, and that it's a moot debate. Many judges, politicians, and academics disagree on which is better. the opinions of Isreal Khan or Prakash Ramadhar are not universal facts. There is much universal evidence to support this, it's not and never has been as cut and dry as you present.

I'd consider, as many others would around the world, the right to vote on politicians, having basic rights respected, and the freedom to business, as central to democracy. not the opinions of Christians who have web 1.0 development skills, or people who ironically don't get the "evolution" of political systems. Liberal democracy at best is only 200 hundred years old, and it's a result of capitalism, the Enlightenment, and better education, that's all.

[Cooloh]

Ah feel bluesy have a crush on yuh desi.

[bluesclues]

I'd consider, as many others would around the world, the right to vote on politicians, having basic rights respected, and the freedom to business, as central to democracy.

And where do these 'basic rights' you speak of come from? Are they really 'rights', or are they 'priviledges' the state can take away at whim to make their job easier? and with total disregard to what's best for the public even if the general public may not be wise or understanding enough why their position needs defending? Or a total disregard of public opinion where the state does whatever the fcuk it wants and the public just have to take it, having no control over the government?

I tellin u now. U going and trap up yourself here.

List the basic rights u speak of.

[sMASH]

Ey, contrary to what Rowley would have u believe, the citizens are not here to fund the government. And the trials should not be at the convenience of the courts.

Trial by juries should remain.

[desifemlove]

I'd consider, as many others would around the world, the right to vote on politicians, having basic rights respected, and the freedom to business, as central to democracy.

And where do these 'basic rights' you speak of come from? Are they really 'rights', or are they 'priviledges' the state can take away at whim to make their job easier? and with total disregard to what's best for the public even if the general public may not be wise or understanding enough why their position needs defending? Or a total disregard of public opinion where the state does whatever the fcuk it wants and the public just have to take it, having no control over the government?

I tellin u now. U going and trap up yourself here.

List the basic rights u speak of.

Bentham said "natural rights is nonsense on stilts"..... I agree completely with him. the only rights humans have are those given by governments and/or societies.

[bluesclues]

I'd consider, as many others would around the world, the right to vote on politicians, having basic rights respected, and the freedom to business, as central to democracy.

And where do these 'basic rights' you speak of come from? Are they really 'rights', or are they 'priviledges' the state can take away at whim to make their job easier? and with total disregard to what's best for the public even if the general public may not be wise or understanding enough why their position needs defending? Or a total disregard of public opinion where the state does whatever the fcuk it wants and the public just have to take it, having no control over the government?

I tellin u now. U going and trap up yourself here.

List the basic rights u speak of.

Bentham said "natural rights is nonsense on stilts"..... I agree completely with him. the only rights humans have are those given by governments and/or societies.

Who the fk is bentham? He's a nobody.

It sounds to me like u dont like living in a democracy. Why dont u go live in china, or syria or north korea?

So am i to take it that u are refusing to list the basic rights?

Also im intrigued by this bentham statement u choose to agree with.. whoever the fk he is. Am i then to take it that you agree with him that you dont have a right to freedom? Or a right to life? So in your perfect world the state could kidnap you and put u in jail then. And you wouldnt have a problem with that since theyre not infringing on any rights.

What ever response you make. Please include the list of 'basic rights' you are talking about because without it, it doesnt seem like u know what ur talking about. Like ur... waaay in over your head right now.


Me tho i could swim with dolphins and the whales. Trust me.

[desifemlove]

I'd consider, as many others would around the world, the right to vote on politicians, having basic rights respected, and the freedom to business, as central to democracy.

And where do these 'basic rights' you speak of come from? Are they really 'rights', or are they 'priviledges' the state can take away at whim to make their job easier? and with total disregard to what's best for the public even if the general public may not be wise or understanding enough why their position needs defending? Or a total disregard of public opinion where the state does whatever the fcuk it wants and the public just have to take it, having no control over the government?

I tellin u now. U going and trap up yourself here.

List the basic rights u speak of.

Bentham said "natural rights is nonsense on stilts"..... I agree completely with him. the only rights humans have are those given by governments and/or societies.

Who the fk is bentham? He's a nobody.

It sounds to me like u dont like living in a democracy. Why dont u go live in china, or syria or north korea?

So am i to take it that u are refusing to list the basic rights?

Also im intrigued by this bentham statement u choose to agree with.. whoever the fk he is. Am i then to take it that you agree with him that you dont have a right to freedom? Or a right to life? So in your perfect world the state could kidnap you and put u in jail then. And you wouldnt have a problem with that since theyre not infringing on any rights.

What ever response you make. Please include the list of 'basic rights' you are talking about because without it, it doesnt seem like u know what ur talking about. Like ur... waaay in over your head right now.


Me tho i could swim with dolphins and the whales. Trust me.

ok...i think i understand now.

you conflate your opinions with fact, despite professing you're educated and a top manager some such...cool lol.

No, i believe there are no natural or innate rights that you presume exist. I think it's pretty much nonsense to suggest they do exist. any rights we have are those that the state or society grants. Unless you can cite where God or the universe or nature gives us rights?

and since when is not having a trial by jury an affront to democracy, or i'm not a true democrat? hahahaha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_d ... d_freedoms

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruto ... ae5df2348c

sorry, but then i don't see how you have resolved this issue that people have debated this for centuries.

[bluesclues]

Of course i could show you how God, the universe AND nature provides us our rights. I even did so to some extent in the religion thread couple years ago. Remember i told u i know the source of all law. It comes before the ten commandments were written down. But the 10 commandments including the 2 jesus added make up the entire societal construct of democracy. From those 12, all the laws of democracy can be interpretted as found in every democratic nation's constitution. The 10 commandments can be interpretted from the universe. But since ur not an initiated mystic, i could spend time explaining it and u will say that its just my opinion. Because u dont understand the very strict systems that are followed to produce the purest interpretation of democracy to embody equality and facilitate peace on earth among all nations. And because u havent read from the very high level books on political history and development of societal systems that i did to understand what is really going on on this planet.

Anyway like i said. There is a greater power and an extremely potent source of wisdom which guides the evolution of man and our systems on earth. Everything is as it is and is intentional as it is today. For your learning. Multiple experiments are being conducted each with a control group for data analysis purposes so man can evolve in mind to evolve into more advanced resource management systems and peaceful relations.

Ie - we do not need amateurs butchering the transition process with half cocked ideas spawned out of exceptional ignorance being passed off as brilliance, claiming to mend a system that is not broken, to mend a problem by creating a bigger one. and with fickle thought towards the true and all encompassing ramifications of it's implementation.

It is true, that all the law can be interpretted from one sentence.

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'

From this principle, all aspects of fairness and equality are embodied. And this has existed since the first civilisation in sumeria. As man evolves mentally, ushered by his spiritual evolution, his interpretation of this very sentence grows deeper and provides more detail in understanding the objective of what we have been given. This planet, to make the best of as a species. And to do our part to assist the universe in it's goal and purpose for creating living creatures as a contrast to inanimate objects.

U are living in a little box desi. That is why you will agree with simple minded solutions and kneel to people just because of their qualifications or accomplishments. But need i remind you that if you have 20 ppl competing in a contest with IQs ranging from 6-25iq. The one with 25 iq might be the smartest, he might even be given awards... but 25 iq is still 'dotish' by real world standards.

Thus i say NO. From my extensive knowledge of the creation and interpretation of democratic law and the system, the CJ's suggestion comes from someone attempting to play in a league of which he just does not hold the callibre of learning required to understand why his suggestion is nonesense of the 'insignificant contribution made out of ignorance' type. It is a laugh for the illuminated as i said. It is amateur. Just like i said rowley was a good opposition leader but would not make a good prime minister.

[eitech]

Ahh. I miss the religion thread

[bluesclues]

Ahh. I miss the religion thread

D lil bit of answers i share still have men processing. Daiz nuttn. Let them take d time to factor in d new understanding into their lives. Thats what i does say knowledge can be overwhelming. And great knowledge can even seem to apply a physical weight on the brain.

[desifemlove]

I'd consider, as many others would around the world, the right to vote on politicians, having basic rights respected, and the freedom to business, as central to democracy.

And where do these 'basic rights' you speak of come from? Are they really 'rights', or are they 'priviledges' the state can take away at whim to make their job easier? and with total disregard to what's best for the public even if the general public may not be wise or understanding enough why their position needs defending? Or a total disregard of public opinion where the state does whatever the fcuk it wants and the public just have to take it, having no control over the government?

I tellin u now. U going and trap up yourself here.

List the basic rights u speak of.

no since it's true. tell me where these natural rights come from. we doh live in no perfect world..

[bluesclues]

I'd consider, as many others would around the world, the right to vote on politicians, having basic rights respected, and the freedom to business, as central to democracy.

And where do these 'basic rights' you speak of come from? Are they really 'rights', or are they 'priviledges' the state can take away at whim to make their job easier? and with total disregard to what's best for the public even if the general public may not be wise or understanding enough why their position needs defending? Or a total disregard of public opinion where the state does whatever the fcuk it wants and the public just have to take it, having no control over the government?

I tellin u now. U going and trap up yourself here.

List the basic rights u speak of.

no since it's true. tell me where these natural rights come from. we doh live in no perfect world..

Why do u think it's called 'natural rights'? Where doo natural things come from?

[desifemlove]

there's no evidence they exist. you're trying to disprove a centuries' old debate, but then if you can prove natural rights exist like how gravity or the electro-magnetic spectrum exist, then cool....

[bluesclues]

there's no evidence they exist. you're trying to disprove a centuries' old debate, but then if you can prove natural rights exist like how gravity or the electro-magnetic spectrum exist, then cool....

U feel somebody wake up a morning with a bright idea and create this ting yes. Lol

[desifemlove]

what? i'm saying there are no natural rights. the evidence supports my view, and many others in the world who believe the same (like most other people in the world). you're making an argument out of nothing, and using your web 1.0 buddies' opinions. you'e just spent time here pushing what opinions your church says are correct, or points that have no evidence behind them, or you cannot accept opinion or things that are inherently subjective. prove to me that natural rights exist, and i'll desist, if not i'll accept you have no tolerance for ambiguity or things that ent/cannot be proven. "is there life on Europa?" does that phase you too?