redfox Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 "Trial by Jury in principle is an excellent and fair way to carry out the decisions in trials,In principle,emphasis,the problem being Jury members have usually no or very little knowledge of criminal procedure and more or less rely on the Judges final summing up,more often than not if you listen to the judges summing up you will probably be able to forecast the jury's verdict." The jury do not have to have any knowledge of the law or procedure - they are there to make decisions based on the evidence presented to them. That has been our system for a very long time, mistakes are made but how many of those mistakes are due to failures of the police, incorrect rulings by a judge etc etc I think you do your fellow citizens who carry out one of the most critical duties of a "member of the public" a great dis-service Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizsterJones Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 "Trial by Jury in principle is an excellent and fair way to carry out the decisions in trials,In principle,emphasis,the problem being Jury members have usually no or very little knowledge of criminal procedure and more or less rely on the Judges final summing up,more often than not if you listen to the judges summing up you will probably be able to forecast the jury's verdict." The jury do not have to have any knowledge of the law or procedure - they are there to make decisions based on the evidence presented to them. That has been our system for a very long time, mistakes are made but how many of those mistakes are due to failures of the police, incorrect rulings by a judge etc etc I think you do your fellow citizens who carry out one of the most critical duties of a "member of the public" a great dis-service Not really have you ever had to follow a criminal case in the high court,most jurors are lost until the judge sums up,invariably the decision rides on his words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 What have peoples political positions have to do with a debate about the issue of rape? Your ignorant inflammatory insults deflect from the seriousness of this topic, and do you no credit. Because that's so unusual on Sheffield Forum. ---------- Post added 19-01-2014 at 22:21 ---------- Extremists of any kind are dangerous. Their views are dangerous. They have damaged the country more than any Islamic or Irish terrorist. Good point but the extreme right have never had any sway in this country. Now we've got a national newspaper exposing material belonging to the security services and UKIP sympathisers stigmatised as mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 What's the High Court got to do with jury trials? Try the Crown Court and try 25 years of being there and doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 There seems to have been plenty of coverage of trials of Roache and Travis, but nothing about Rolf Harris. I thought his trial had also started. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizsterJones Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What's the High Court got to do with jury trials? Try the Crown Court and try 25 years of being there and doing it My bad I meant Crown Court ,if you have been there and doing it for 25 years it seems you have taken little notice of the summing up procedure Im afraid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 There seems to have been plenty of coverage of trials of Roache and Travis, but nothing about Rolf Harris. I thought his trial had also started. Am I wrong? I think he was just in court to plead, he will stand trial on April 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 And you can enlighten us as to your extensive experience listening to trials from start to finish and the summing up? How many have you sat through ? It's still an insult to your fellow citizens who sit on juries to suggest they blindly follow a perceived view from a judge - who tells them as a matter of law that the facts are entitled a matter for them to decide and they must ignore what they may think the judge's view is. If using your example you took a sample jury from let's say SF users allowed them to listen to the evidence and a summing up - the result would be what the judge told them to and told them do would it ? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Good point but the extreme right have never had any sway in this country. There used to be a former monarch who was a good mate of Hitler's when we were at war with him. And a newspaper who published a headline Hooray For The Blackshirts. The British ruling class have a long tradition of containing elements of the far right. Now we've got a national newspaper exposing material belonging to the security services and UKIP sympathisers stigmatised as mad. Arguing that floods are caused by gay marriage isn't usually seen as a sign of sanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I read today that a witness in the DLT trial had her identity kept secret and gave evidence from behind a curtain. Her allegation was that DLT had squeezed her bottom when she was working as a TV camerawoman. Can anyone with a knowledge of the law explain why the identity of the witness is kept secret and she is shielded from view ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.