Click here. The SDGCK Comparative Legal Analysis. The rat is the end of the world. The monkey is the beginning. The monkey and his experiences with asteroidal interruptions of the biosphere led to the technologies that kills all of us. What if Komodo dragons or frogs from the Florida Everglades could get dressed up in suits and some how argue with the United Nations, argue about established Anglo jurisprudence or argue with the gulf states about why they pay all of their citizens a benefit. That would be ridiculous. What if dress up a shaved Sasquatch in a suit and let them argue from a White House and then also let them feel good and like a winner in whatever they have to say to achieve that feeling? That would be ridiculous. What if we see this on TV?; also ridiculous. I don't want to see it. This article is really about the use of juries. The White House otherwise, the US in it's entirety is a glorification of the stupid as disguised by 24 hour shopping and online convenience; yahoo!! They are good at this consumer excitement and also media exasperation when they are not sure how it all works. But they cannot lead us in law or economics where they remain the led and the follower; not the lead in the Anglo culture but the well dressed dog on tight leash.
Click here.
The SDGCK Comparative Legal Analysis.
The rat is the end of the world. The monkey is the beginning. The monkey and his experiences with asteroidal interruptions of the biosphere led to the technologies that kills all of us.
What if Komodo dragons or frogs from the Florida Everglades could get dressed up in suits and some how argue with the United Nations, argue about established Anglo jurisprudence or argue with the gulf states about why they pay all of their citizens a benefit. That would be ridiculous. What if dress up a shaved Sasquatch in a suit and let them argue from a White House and then also let them feel good and like a winner in whatever they have to say to achieve that feeling? That would be ridiculous. What if we see this on TV?; also ridiculous. I don't want to see it. This article is really about the use of juries. The White House otherwise, the US in it's entirety is a glorification of the stupid as disguised by 24 hour shopping and online convenience; yahoo!! They are good at this consumer excitement and also media exasperation when they are not sure how it all works. But they cannot lead us in law or economics where they remain the led and the follower; not the lead in the Anglo culture but the well dressed dog on tight leash.
The truth is that the English have been influenced by movies that tout Americana ingenuity or capability when they are still kind of dunce about somethings, problematic and fool hardy. To their credit, they get the omelette and the martini right but some basics with civilisation and law rather totally wrong; just totally. An example is the purpose of a jury. The jury is a trier of fact presumedly composed of sufficiently well intentioned, experienced, educated and bondable people who could apparently hear a set of facts and make a decision. The inability of a jury to make a decision should then lead to a discussion with the Court in the present of Counsel on what issues there may be. This would be to ensure they understand how to proceed, make the decision and find that finality. The European system does not use lay persons entirely in the "trier of fact" process but they may use a few such lay persons.
Juries have to be unanimous in the rest of Europe.
The real Americans on the other hand are capable people with good socioeconomic motivation, military skill and experience that are aided by equipment that should avail them, never failing to do it's job if they had an enemy. They do not.
They are never really at war with anyone because they would never win. These wars are usually scenarios to disarm them, depopulate them and repopulate them when they, the real Americans and the pretenders fail to agree on essential national income support benefit policies and who would then wish to take their incapability for agreement to the international arena and attack an ancient 5000 year old culture where they have had a national, consistent benefit for that entirety of history. You should just follow and stop being internationally anti- social. As such, The Americans would most likely be dead in a sub when attempting to dive below the prohibited depth. There is a prohibited depth. The sub, no matter what, is crushed by the weight of the water beyond that prohibited depth. Saving a sub or personnel beyond that depth is very highly unlikely.
This is not a criticism of the Americans since its not the technologies you build but the pilot that's important. But I'm following American influences other wise, we lose our best selves in following these Creoles. Soon, the certainty of quiet justice is no longer quiet. The jury must be unanimous. We returned to that wisdom. This is because the trier of fact, when it's a judge, can never be undecided or indecisive. So, we tell the Americans and their stupid Creole ways in search of influence over is to assimilate us to just bugger off, that they must bugger off. How can you have a trial with an undecided trier of fact? That is all the jury is; a trier of fact. You miss this point and then you want to put someone through a freaking trial again.
The other key issue is that a hope for retrial after a hung jury mistral leads to a total prejudice of the defendant and his case when all of the defences and the evidence have been exposed to the public such that a new fair trial is impossible. There is a certain degree of confidentiality that one must maintain in the process. Witnesses for both sides may also be at risk after this exposure. It is interesting that we will have to discuss this. A lay jury seems to be unique to the English world nonetheless.
////
Actually, the requirement for jury unanimity varies significantly across Europe, as many legal systems there operate under civil law traditions rather than the common law tradition found in the UK or the US. In fact, many European countries don't use "juries" in the traditional sense at all.
Here is a breakdown of how verdicts are reached across the continent:
## Common Law vs. Civil Law Approaches
In the **United Kingdom** (specifically England and Wales), juries ideally reach a unanimous verdict. However, if they cannot agree after a reasonable amount of time, the judge may accept a "majority verdict" (usually 10–2 or 11–1).
In contrast, many continental European countries use a **mixed tribunal** system. Instead of 12 laypeople sitting alone, a panel of professional judges and lay jurors deliberate and vote together.
## Majority Requirements in Key Jurisdictions
| Country | System Type | Verdict Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| **France** | Mixed Tribunal | A "qualified majority" is required for conviction. In the Court of Assize, at least 7 out of 9 votes (or 10 out of 12 on appeal) must be for guilt. |
| **Germany** | Mixed Tribunal | Conviction generally requires a two-thirds majority (e.g., 2 out of 3 judges or a specific ratio of lay judges to professionals). |
| **Norway** | Mixed Tribunal | In serious cases, a majority of 5 out of 7 members (which includes 2 professional judges and 5 laypeople) is required to convict. |
| **Spain** | Lay Jury | Spain uses a 9-person lay jury. A conviction requires 7 votes, while an acquittal requires only 5. |
| **Belgium** | Lay Jury | Historically, Belgium used a simple majority (7–5). If the vote was a tie, the defendant was acquitted. If it was 7–5 for guilt, the professional judges had to "confirm" the jury's reasoning. |
## Why Unanimity is Rare
The concept of a "hung jury"—which leads to a mistrial and a complete restart of the case—is largely a feature of common law systems.
Continental systems often view the **weighted majority** as a sufficient safeguard for the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. By requiring a supermajority (like two-thirds or more), they aim to balance the protection of the defendant with the administrative efficiency of avoiding frequent retrials.
////
There are rules for fairness but a monkey set on a win may eschew these rules to seek his personal ego achievement; not communal and balanced justice.
Before the landmark Privy Council decision in ***Bell v DPP* [1985]**, the idea of an "abuse of process" specifically triggered by a hung jury was far less developed in English law. In fact, for much of the 20th century, the prosecution's power to retry a case was seen as nearly absolute, provided the jury had been properly discharged. But you cannot retry. It defeats the purpose of a trial and that is finality; you cheeky bastards. You need to accept that you are in need of assimilation the other way. We could tolerate a majority verdict but not a hung jury. But as of necessity, the decision must be final...you bastards. You have a Judge alone trial and he or she says, they do not know what they want yet. That never happens; you idiot. Just bitch up your Creole self; the bitch up!
A Court under a reasonably experienced and trained Judge does not say he cannot reach a decision. That would make the Court and it's process a Creole fried chicken, a Creole float of ice cream and soda that is just a mess. But I love fried chicken; for real.
However, the foundations for the current "two-trial convention" were built on a few key historical developments and cases:
## 1. The Pre-1967 Requirement for Unanimity
Before the **Criminal Justice Act 1967**, every jury in England and Wales had to be **unanimous**. Non - Hung juries were significantly more common because a single "holdout" could prevent a verdict.
* **The Norm:** Retrials were not standard practice. Because the law required 12 out of 12, the failure to reach a verdict was seen simply as a technical failure of the first trial, not a sign that the prosecution's case was weak.
* **The Shift:** Once majority verdicts (10-2 or 11-1) were introduced in 1967, a hung jury became a much stronger signal that the evidence was genuinely problematic, as it meant at least three people remained unconvinced.
## 2. *R v Humphrys [1977]* (The Power to Stay)
While not about a hung jury specifically, this House of Lords case is the "Big Bang" for abuse of process in England.
* **The Ruling:** It confirmed that a judge has an inherent power to **stop (stay) a prosecution** if it is "oppressive" or an "abuse of the process of the court."
* **Impact:** This gave defense barristers the legal tool they needed. Before *Humphrys*, it was argued that judges didn't even have the power to stop a case if the prosecution wanted to proceed; *Humphrys* proved they did.
## 3. *Connelly v DPP [1964]*
This case established that the court must protect its own process from being manipulated. It laid the groundwork for the idea that even if the law technically allows a second or third trial, the court can step in if the prosecution is using the rules to act unfairly toward a defendant.
## 4. The 19th Century View: *R v Winsor [1866]*
In the Victorian era, the focus was almost entirely on the judge's discretion. In ***Winsor v The Queen***, the court confirmed that:
* A judge has the absolute right to discharge a jury if they cannot agree.
* This discharge does **not** count as an acquittal.
* The defendant could be kept in custody and tried again immediately.
For over a century after *Winsor*, the "limit" on retrials was governed more by the **Crown's pocketbook and reputation** than by judicial intervention. The prosecution simply stopped because it was expensive and embarrassing to keep losing, not because a judge forced them to.
## Summary: Evolution of the Limit
| Era | Typical Limit | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| **Pre-1967** | No clear limit. | Discretion of the Crown; focus on unanimous "truth." |
| **1967–1985** | Emergence of "Two-Trial" habit. | *Criminal Justice Act* (Majority verdicts) made hung juries rarer and more significant. |
| **Post-1985** | **The Two-Trial Convention.** | *Bell v DPP* and *R v Henworth* formalize the "Abuse of Process" check. |
By the time *Bell v DPP* arrived in 1985, the English legal system had already reached a point where a third trial was considered "unusual," but *Bell* provided the modern constitutional language—specifically the **right to a fair trial within a reasonable time**—to make that convention enforceable.
Are you looking for how these historical rules applied to a specific type of offense, like white-collar crime or capital offenses (when they still existed)?
Comments
Post a Comment