0742Sheff Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I sat on a jury in a murder case - no witnesses just forensic evidence that could have been interpreted either way. The majority of the jury had already made their minds up about the accused by looking at him (albeit for the lesser charge of manslaughter). To cut a long story short in the end we sent him down, end of story. 18 months later the conviction was quashed with the appeal judge saying it was one of the worst miscarriages he had ever seen. The fact is, in a lot of cases only the deceased and the defendent know the truth, the rest of us can only make educated guesses - and some jururs don't even bother to do that. I felt a great deal of anguish and guilt on hearing of the appeal. I don't want to think about how I would've felt if I'd been responsible for sending the guy to meet his maker. As you say. The evidence in your case could have been interpreted either way. Once again i feel the need to quote myself... If the case is proven beyond doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I'm totally with you 0742, but technically i should be dead now. Our lass swore to me she was 17, she was actually 2 days short of 16, i was 17 going on 18 when we..............first held hands. Trials are necessary, though some on here would love summary justice to have been carried out on me. Did i just own up to technically being a peado. ? Edit: Btw, 16 years on, we are still holding hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studentbob Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 As you say. The evidence in your case could have been interpreted either way. Once again i feel the need to quote myself... But the verdict was 'guilty' - not 'probably guilty but we can't be 100 per cent'. Who is gonna decide that there is no doubt? Another jury? Or as someone else has already intimated, will we have endless appeals lasting tens of years and costing a fortune. It's a tough one, I know. And I sympatise with some of the feelings behind your view. But for such a system to ever become an effective deterrent in this day and age would require so many removals of the rights we all take for granted that our justice system would end up looking more like the one used by the Saudis. Be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I'm totally with you 0742, but technically i should be dead now. Our lass swore to me she was 17, she was actually 2 days short of 16, i was 17 going on 18 when we..............first held hands. Trials are necessary, though some on here would love summary justice to have been carried out on me. Did i just own up to technically being a peado. ? Edit: Btw, 16 years on, we are still holding hands. That places me 1 year older than you and i thought you were an old codger! I met my missus about a week before her 16th (although nothing happened for a good while). Just gone 17 years together last month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 But the verdict was 'guilty' - not 'probably guilty but we can't be 100 per cent'. Who is gonna decide that there is no doubt? Another jury? Or as someone else has already intimated, will we have endless appeals lasting tens of years and costing a fortune. It's a tough one, I know. And I sympatise with some of the feelings behind your view. But for such a system to ever become an effective deterrent in this day and age would require so many removals of the rights we all take for granted that our justice system would end up looking more like the one used by the Saudis. Be careful what you wish for. Hence the 'beyond a doubt' part. The cases where the evidence is so overwhelming that there simply isn't a defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Maybe we're both old codgers, but just haven't accepted it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I'm not a codger until i hit 40 and i'm a fair bit off that yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195 As far as I'm concerned this shows the flaws in democracy. I would never want to be ruled by the will of the people. So basically what you are saying is that you are not in favour of democracy if the result of it is that it actually brings about the kind of society that those who vote believe they want to live in because you personally disagree with some popular opinions. What you infact want is an elective dictatorship where the votes of the people mean nothing and a small ruling elite whos views are not representative of those they represent and are not truly accountable to those people. Well done. You should be very cheerful, that's what we have. What we live in now is very similar to living in a dictatorship. Although we have a charade of voting little changes and the people we vote in don't truly represent us any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Yea you can. You can, but only if you're a massive hypocrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I wouldn't want true democracy. The you don't deserve to live here then as that ("true democracy") is the method of governance preferred by the UK. Yea you can. Only if you're a hypocrite. If the case is proven beyond doubt then pass me the gun and start digging a grave. Very few crimes are proven 100%, there is (usually) some grounds for being unable to prove a crime 100%. No. See: People have been wrongly executed in the past when there was "incontrovertible evidence" for conviction, which is (one of the reasons) why we got rid of it in the first place. I disagree. In this day and age we have the techniques and technology to prove cases beyond doubt. With the exception of fabricated evidence, lying in court etc. If i got it wrong i would have shot an innocent man. Which makes you a killer of an innocent; which is murder. Edit: Btw, 16 years on, we are still holding hands. Yeah, super glue is a bugger to remove:D. Hence the 'beyond a doubt' part. However, nothing is proven 100%, reasonable doubt implies there is grounds for mistakes, "beyond a doubt" doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.