Both of these concepts are a knee-jerk reaction to a legal system that has atrophied for far too long.

Bring on the inquisitorial system used in places such as Japan and Germany.
A much lower crime rate, and contrary to popular belief, less likely to imprison the innocent.

Only problem is that there's no profit for lawyers, so none of them are going to advocate it. A shame really.

With reference to the second part of the article, having served on a jury I think the idea of jurors recommending sentences is worrying to say the least. In my own experience, I was horrified when guilt was presumed by some members of the jury when the defendents were first sighted, and the area in which they lived was condemned as full of criminals and bludgers. Some of the jurors ridiculed the defendents - how they looked, their level of education, and the fact that they were unemployed. Jurors have pre-conceived ideas, they are acting from a subjective not an objective viewpoint and they have a narrow frame of reference. We would like to think that judges pass sentence objectively and they have the legitimacy and responsibility to do so whereas jurors do not.

I certainly would not be happy to have 12 drongos and true, snatched away from their daily pursuits, making decisions on a sentence for me should I ever find myself in court. If I were one of the jurors, neither would I wish to be making decisions a judge should continue to make, based on his experience and legal qualifications.

I think a good article in no way feathering nests of lawyers.

In a time of fear, which is what this Government has pushed, kindness honesty even religious tolerance go out the window and the emotionally insecure seek the surety of retribution.

An excellent example is the reaction to 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, war without legality, war based on for the public fear for the ‘rulers’ hubris and oil. The rumours become accepted belief the deliberate lies accepted for that is what the media says. So too in court if the prejudices of the jury are expressed in sentence.

The law in its not atrophied but resistance to rapid change. Many feeling themselves deprived of blood and gust satisfying and providing instantaneous pleasure, though one hopes regretted at leisure, seek change.

Is not war and mayhem contrary to the UN and international law, the consequences still with us and into the future, enough? Perhaps we should have blood and guts on the TV, raped Iraqi women or the moment a Lebanese child picks up a cluster bomb (they are illegal in the situation in which they have been used) and blows part of its body to pieces. An ultra fast film digitally enhanced could show the bits flying of and the blood spouting.

So jury recommendations could rule public humiliation,assured andworse to follow, flogging and death being banned--at present

I'll agree wholeheartedly that jury sentencing is not the way to go - and I'm pleased that the Jihad Jack ruling shows the courts are still capable of resisting pressure from the executive.

Though at the same time, any institution that cannot be 'tinkered with' is going to atrophy. It is the nature of man.
The problem with law is, how do you ensure the system remains relevant to society, without having it simply pandering to the public whim? Some sects of society have such little sympathy that it is easy for politicians to go all out against them and use them to whip up hysteria - paedophiles for instance.

I was utterly shocked to hear that a US court had actually charged and sentenced a man for writing lurid thoughts about children in his diary.
He didn't actually act out any of these dark fantasies, but he was charged for what was in his diary.
Fair enough people hate paedophiles, but this is going too far.

The issues I have with our legal system generally aren't related to the points brought up in this article which are accurate, and valid points about our legal system.

Though I'm still convinced it has evolved to suit the needs of lawyers much more than justice. After all, the goal of the adversarial system is not the pursuit of truth. Even the author of the article would be forced to agree with me on that score at least.
Bear that in mind.

Probably I have expressed myself badly.

The Lebanese child or Iraqi woman are placed as evidence of unintended consequences of jury verdict, not media titillation. The Jury being some Western countries, as reported in the media.

Parts of the West seizing on the definition of terrorism found such precluded examination of the evidence. A tit for tat situation, the sought prisoner exchange in the case of Lebanon hardly justifying the jury verdict of war of retribution .

Fear or maybe as Seymour Hearsh suggests background noise to Imperial Intent, allowed the USA and Australia media, presumably reporting our masters, to rule continued war as retribution for legal infringement, capture of two Israeli soldiers.

The jury, as reported, suggested punishment. As reported because though citation may lend credence the spin on information prevents certainty, and hardly engenders trust.

Too wide a bow? After all international law is just a subject of polite ‘me too’ conversation not actuality, but perhaps it makes my point.