Lack of understanding about the judiciary is unacceptable and dangerous

judges are subject to more scrutiny than ever. It is time to develop legal studies in Britain

The judiciary is the third branch of government, of equal importance to the legislative and executive powers in this country. The reality is that today it is not a major social problem in our society that judges, at any time you are asked to judge: the scope of marriage contracts for the right to die, national security within the limits of privacy in the digital age, the application of the controversial international arrest warrants for the future of media regulation.

So why is there a lack of knowledge and research in this country on the judiciary - and why is it dangerous

In the UK, the academic community has not recognized the central role of the judiciary in society and to pursue a deeper understanding of this key state institution. This lack of studies of justice in this country is partly due to the fact that researchers have long believed that the myth that investigating judges and juries is not illegal or impractical. There are in fact no legal impediment or other research for a strong judiciary in Britain.

is not the case that judges are somehow against academics. But because there are few judges in universities and academics in the legal field, both groups tend to be strangers in their professional life.

Why is it important? What is the effect of this lack of understanding of what the judges really? Sharon Witherspoon, Director of the Nuffield Foundation, gave the best response when he said:

"... as the White Queen, it is sometimes possible to believe six impossible things before breakfast to think abstractly about how the law works. Empirical studies play a vital role in showing how systems really work and that these thoughts are six specific agreements. "

• is easy to think of things that the White Queen could believe before breakfast on the way professional judges and lay judges (jurors) work. It is likely to create, for example, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom spends most of his time on the affairs of human rights and that juries are more likely to pay the defendants convicted for rape . But research has shown that these are false beliefs. UK Supreme Court UCL project has shown that human rights cases, in fact, represent only a small proportion of all cases of the Supreme Court (27%). UCL Jury Project, examining every single jury verdict in England and Wales in 2006-08, also showed that juries convict more often than they acquit in rape cases (55% of the time).
• The danger of being in the dark on the judges and jurors is that myths abound, and reform programs will be determined by unfounded stories outside the perception of the date of the judges and courts, and perceptions based on media interest in certain subjects.

Our lack of understanding is perhaps even more dangerous for professional judges to juries. The jurors deeply rooted support this country, with the public, the media and judges generally ready to take their defense. The rest of the justice is not integrated real public support. Professional judges are not elected (for good reason) and are not representative of society as a whole.

Today, judges are increasingly subject to greater scrutiny of the public and political debate than ever. This occurs naturally with the constitutional amendments that have expanded the role of judges and courts, and the government has increased report of criminal investigations (such as research Leveson) to discuss political and social issues deeply controversial.

Find best price for : --Cameron----David----Eustice----George--