Watching Law & Order, you see how prosecution works, at least on a surface level, but how is it different in the U.K.? Or is it more or less the same?
UK has a justice system.
US has just a system.
Sorry, I thought this was !dadjokes@lemmy.world
What's the difference between the UK justice system and the U.S. justice system?
Submitted 2 days ago by Vader@sopuli.xyz to [deleted]
Comments
mech@feddit.org 1 day ago
RumAndCreole@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Wigs vs no wigs
MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
There are three legal systems in the UK: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Scots law in particular has distinct differences from England - for example juries have 15 members.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law
It’s because the UK is four countries smooshed together.
disregardable@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Generally, they’re struggling with the same issues of being severely under-staffed and under-funded to the point where they can’t really function without a “McJustice” style system. They recently stopped offering jury trials for sentences less than 3 years. You only get a judge. However, the UK has MUCH shorter sentences than the US (because American long sentences are outside the global norm and generally just irrational). The average length of a sentence to jail is under 2 years, so most people will never get a jury trial.
Unlike in the US, graduates require a “pupilage” position under someone else before they’re allowed to practice, and only about 5-10% of law grads receive them.
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
The legal systems you find in the US (since some states I understand do things a bit differently) are largely based on the common law legal system of England and Wales.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are different jurisdictions. NI is a broadly similar system to EW but with its own laws, but the Scottish system is more different; they operate on Scots law, which is kind of a hybrid of common law and European style civil law.
Now, it would be hard for me to type on my phone an overview of the entire legal system of England and Wales because it - by itself - is essentially 4 legal systems in a trenchcoat that were smushed together in a car accident, but here’s an overview of the big differences you’d find in the criminal system.
-
The first thing you’d notice after you were arrested is that you don’t get a lawyer; you get a solicitor. Here, there are two types of lawyers. Solicitors are the basically the people who handle everything that isn’t related to arguing in court. If it comes to court, your lawyer will hire a barrister for you. Barristers (so called because they are admitted “to the bar”, like US lawyers) are arguing-in-court specialists. These days some solicitors can argue in court, and some barristers can take clients directly, but this is still rare.
-
Next a lawyer (usually a barrister) at the Crown Prosecution Service will decide whether or not you will be charged. The CPS is I guess the Law and Order equivalent of the District Attorney’s office, except we don’t elect a District Attorney. The head of the CPS is technically appointed by the government, but is basically appointed by a committee of lawyers and civil servants.
-
No grand juries here. If you’re charged, you go straight to trial.
-
If the crime is low level enough (like less than £1000 find or less than 6 months in gaol or something like that) you go to Magistrate’s Court. A magistrate is basically a volunteer who isn’t a lawyer, but they will have a lawyer whispering in their ear. There will be three of them and there won’t be a jury. The idea behind this is that the magistrates are trusted members of the community (and they do get an amount of training), so it’s kind of like you have a permanent mini-jury on hand, but many lawyers don’t like the system.
-
For a more serious crime, you end up in Crown Court. Crown Court will usually have a judge and jury. If the crimi is extremely national security sensitive, and they can convince the judge that this is the case, then the judge may decide that you don’t get a jury. On the other hand, in most cases, you can decide that you don’t want a jury. None of our judges are elected; they are appointed by another committee and they are almost all former barristers.
-
After that the system looks broadly similar. Next up is the Court of Appeal of England and Wales where there will be a few senior judges. They decide matters of law but do not second guess facts decided by jury. And then after that is the United Kingdom Supreme Court (for we all share one).
-
melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Both come in and out of fashion over time but they are mostly used to get chump-change from the populace.
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 2 days ago
In the UK, magistrates, who try cases at lower courts, aren’t trained lawyers but civilian volunteers, who have trained lawyers as advisors on the technical aspects. Not sure if this is the case in the US.
disregardable@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
That is more “something that happens” in rural areas than intentional by design. In a lot of the US, judges are elected positions. In the majority of states, non-lawyers are allowed to run, but in competitive districts it’d be difficult to win without the bar association’s recommendation.
dbx12@programming.dev 2 days ago
Wait what? US judges are elected without the law setting any requirements? So goat farmer John can run for county judge despite not having any legal education?
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
There are magistrate and crown courts. Magistrates will deal with “lesser” crimes themselves but will forward the “big ones” onto the Crown Court.
For more serious crimes you still (mostly) have the right to a jury trial.
We also differentiate between solicitors and barristers. Both are lawyers. Solicitors are everywhere and it’s super easy to have a meeting with one. Barristers tend to be retained on your behalf via your solicitor. It’s possible to not even see your barrister until you’re in court and they are defending you.
thesohoriots@lemmy.world 2 days ago
In the US, at least, it’s a legal system. Justice is frequently missing.