this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
947 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

87417 readers
3668 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Any justice system actually. Common law especially though.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 15 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Common Law is better than codified law. That's the only reason we have juries and don't just let judges decide the fate of the accused. Can you imagine, in this country, judges the sole decider of your case?

The reason that the UK and US have had such cuntish law enforcement is not because of english common law. It should be noted the UK cancelled some of common law's basic tenants, like the right to a jury trial, not only afforded to indictable offenses, any crime with less than 3 years imprisonment is decided by their famously haughty aristocratic judges now.

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 2 points 8 hours ago

Jury vs judge trial is a separate axis from common law vs civil law. You can have common law (where decisions of higher courts are deemed binding on lower courts) even if lower courts are all judge-only trials. You can have trials decided by a jury where every decision made by a judge is ultimately answerable only to written statute, with prior judicial judgments being at best persuasive.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer's labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years.

In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 1 points 16 hours ago

Pretty sure it's not active yet though, still being discussed?