PeteMorris Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 I strongly agree, you should avoid jury service at all costs. I agree. God help me if you lot were elevated to being judges! You lot would have sent her to Siberia for 20 years hard labour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yes she shouldn't have done it. Yes it was wrong. Yes she should be punished. Yes she was foolish. All of those things, but she shouldn't have her life ruined because of it. Thats the usual defence for burglars,shoplifters and petty thugs as well,plus lots of serious criminals as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Thats the usual defence for burglars,shoplifters and petty thugs as well,plus lots of serious criminals as well. Oh dear, another of the hang em high brigade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Oh dear, another of the hang em high brigade! No , another pragmatic and realistic member of the community. The usual statement offered by solicitors prior to sentencing is based on the impact that imprisonment for the offence will have on the good name of the offender and his/her chances in society. She was wrong she got done. Justice served. 3 months isn't that harsh for basically risking a mistrial and costing the taxpayer millions having to retry the case as it stands anyway. I can't believe a university lecturer living and teaching in the UK for 21 years has a problem understanding English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 No , another pragmatic and realistic member of the community. The usual statement offered by solicitors prior to sentencing is based on the impact that imprisonment for the offence will have on the good name of the offender and his/her chances in society. She was wrong she got done. Justice served. 3 months isn't that harsh for basically risking a mistrial and costing the taxpayer millions having to retry the case as it stands anyway. I can't believe a university lecturer living and teaching in the UK for 21 years has a problem understanding English. I don't doubt your pragmatism, or being a realistic member of society. However, in this instance I think you're all overreacting. It wasn't a high profile trial, and I suspect (although I can't say for definite) that it was NOT a multi-million pound trial. It was a trail of someone being done for assault. A petty criminal if you like. It didn't cost millions as you imply. She made the mistake of telling someone what she had done, and it has to be said, came clean and admitted it. It would have been very easy to lie and say she hadn't done it. Nobody witnessed her doing it. Nobody would have been any wiser. She realised her mistake, admitted it, and gets her life ruined as thanks for it. Obviously I can't substantiate it. But of all the criminal trials up and down the country, I can't believe this is unique, and she should be punished so harshly. Sorry but that's my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Thats the usual defence for burglars,shoplifters and petty thugs as well,plus lots of serious criminals as well.Seems to work well enough for them...and quite unlike for the generally law-abiding type (per this woman -quite clearly- save of course as to her misshap). Easy target (to make an example of) for the judges. Is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Seems to work well enough for them...and quite unlike for the generally law-abiding type (per this woman -quite clearly- save of course as to her misshap). Easy target (to make an example of) for the judges. Is all. Thank you L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 We're overreacting? Who started the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 We're overreacting? Who started the thread? Errrr...well I did, but I certainly didn't expect the 'hang em high' brigade to descend upon me. I merely said it was a bit harsh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 this has been coming for a while. Judges have been moaning about it for years. They're concerned 'smart' self-important and vain jurors may be able to usurp their authority in the jury room. Except this particular 'smart' juror isn't so smart, after all. They've had their ass hauled off to jail for contempt. Correct sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.