27-05-2014 5:10 PM
Today in court Rolf sang part of Jake the peg and demonstated how to play the digeridoo, tomorrow he might do two little boys.
06-06-2014 11:31 AM
Jurors should not be reflecting on body language when coming to their conclusions, they must base their verdict on evidence put before them, if a reasonable doubt remains then they must bring a not-guilty verdict.
The average Joe on a jury has very little perception of what body language is conveying!
06-06-2014 12:07 PM
Then the argument will rage as to what is "reasonable"?
Summing up (from both sides and the judge) will begin on Monday.
Will the jurors have any firm idea of which way they're going to jump after all the summing up or will they be "seeing what the others think" before going one way or the other?
Were it possible, could you take those jurors aside and get them to categorically state that they'd made their mind up and wouldn't be swayed by the opinions of the other jurors?
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
06-06-2014 12:22 PM
This is why I'd hate to be at the mercy of a jury, because I doubt the ability of most to come to sound conclusions based on evidence presented. Jurors should not be jumping, they should be asking themselves if the case has been proven, if the answer is no the a not guilty verdict should follow.
They can discuss with fellow jurors to see if there is a general understanding of what has been presented to them, they should however not be swayed by others, only evidence should sway them!
06-06-2014 12:42 PM
But that's what happens, they ARE swayed by "the others".
I can't remember the title but there was a film (or TV film) about a juror who hung out against all the others for a "Not Guilty" verdict and eventually swayed them all the bring a NG verdict. This was before the Law was changed to allow a majority verdict.
In the film, it turned out that the accused was guilty all along.
I know "it was only a film" but it reflected real life.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
06-06-2014 12:46 PM
@cee-dee wrote:
I can't remember the title but there was a film (or TV film) about a juror who hung out against all the others for a "Not Guilty" verdict and eventually swayed them all the bring a NG verdict. This was before the Law was changed to allow a majority verdict.
12 Angry Men ... if we are thinking of the same film.
06-06-2014 12:50 PM
Again an illustration of why the supposed virtue of 12 good men/women and true is so flawed! If I were guilty I'd be happy to have a jury trial but as an innocent man I'd have little of no faith in them.
06-06-2014 1:07 PM
What I meant was, imagine in the time of Cave Men for instance, one tribe would go out to hunt and if another tribe encroached on their territory, they would kill them instead of the animals they were hunting. Today, one would plant an informant in the other tribe; to tell tribe 1 when tribe 2 was going to come into their territory.......and they'd be waiting to ambush them. Or they'd create an independant police force, plant evidence to suggest tribe 2 had already encroached into their territory and have them disciplined. That kind of evolved deviance, takes a much more developed mind ( dare I say intelligence........which is aslo evolved ) than your basic simple "Cave Man" would have had..............................some, I dare say, call it progress. However, it is not just good that evolves; it is evil as well.........it's a double edged sword. A bit like computer hackers developing viruses to keep ahead of the game.........It becomes harder to read, understand, suss out.....whatever; by those trying to combat it and many indeed are fooled !
06-06-2014 1:08 PM
06-06-2014 1:14 PM
That was to an earlier post that Busty posted..........haven't worked out how to post that Quotie thing yet.
06-06-2014 1:19 PM
Jurors should not be reflecting on body language when coming to their conclusions, they must base their verdict on evidence put before them, if a reasonable doubt remains then they must bring a not-guilty verdict.
The average Joe on a jury has very little perception of what body language is conveying!
Then I suggest you may be open to being taken for a ride in life, by people who you don't know well enough to be sure of; but may still have to make a decision about, when you've only got your "Savvy" and their body language to go on.
06-06-2014 1:27 PM
@lambsy_uk wrote:Again an illustration of why the supposed virtue of 12 good men/women and true is so flawed! If I were guilty I'd be happy to have a jury trial but as an innocent man I'd have little of no faith in them.
An interesting idea.
There was a time when if a jury found the defendant guilty, their decision was unquestioned but should they found them innocent against the opinion of the court, they could be charged in the Star Chamber 'for their partiallity in finding a manifest offender not guilty'.
It took a courageous jury in 1670 who withstood imprisonment without food or water to change things.
06-06-2014 1:59 PM
06-06-2014 2:01 PM
06-06-2014 2:14 PM
06-06-2014 2:20 PM
Thank you!
06-06-2014 2:25 PM
But by then the Star Chamber had been abolished.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
06-06-2014 2:38 PM
@evoman3957 wrote:What I meant was, imagine in the time of Cave Men for instance, one tribe would go out to hunt and if another tribe encroached on their territory, they would kill them instead of the animals they were hunting. Today, one would plant an informant in the other tribe; to tell tribe 1 when tribe 2 was going to come into their territory.......and they'd be waiting to ambush them. Or they'd create an independant police force, plant evidence to suggest tribe 2 had already encroached into their territory and have them disciplined. That kind of evolved deviance, takes a much more developed mind ( dare I say intelligence........which is aslo evolved ) than your basic simple "Cave Man" would have had..............................some, I dare say, call it progress. However, it is not just good that evolves; it is evil as well.........it's a double edged sword. A bit like computer hackers developing viruses to keep ahead of the game.........It becomes harder to read, understand, suss out.....whatever; by those trying to combat it and many indeed are fooled !
Thank you evoman.
06-06-2014 2:47 PM
@lambsy_uk wrote:
Are you able to point me towards details, sound interesting, and a tale of integrity above all else!
The Bushel case.
06-06-2014 2:49 PM
Strewth I'm slow.
Really must remember to wear my glasses to avoid the temptation of skipping over posts.
06-06-2014 2:53 PM
@lambsy_uk wrote:Again an illustration of why the supposed virtue of 12 good men/women and true is so flawed! If I were guilty I'd be happy to have a jury trial but as an innocent man I'd have little of no faith in them.
The whole system of how a person is tried is flawed, but as a mere average person I have no idea what type of system wouldn't be.
I can speak from personal experience that the earlier suggestion of "if the jury can be convinced of a verdict even if the evidence is not true" is most definately something that occurs very frequently and innocent people have been found guilty, and suffered for it.
I am not suggesting it was something as serious as child sex abuse but if a person is able to lie and cheat over something less then they are able to do it with this threads example.