Well there ya go... I never knowed that!   Not much!

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/25459569/jurors-think-docks-mean-guilt-research/

"If an alleged terrorist sits behind glass in court, they must be guilty, right?

At least that's what juries are likely to think, according to Australian researchers, who found that defendants in glass docks are twice as likely to be convicted than if seated at the bar table.

More than 400 jurors watched mock trials of people accused of plotting a terrorist act for the University of Western Sydney study.

In some of the trials, juries saw the defendant sitting in an enclosed glass dock, while in others they sat in an open dock or at the bar table beside their lawyers.

For those behind glass, six in 10 jurors found them guilty.

Almost half found those in the open dock guilty, while just three in 10 decided the defendants at the table had committed a crime."

They bring this guy in under police escort, with handcuffs on, and sit him in a dock separate from everyone else, and the jury isn't going to assume he's guilty?

a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing.

ian wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 11:33pm:


So you consider innocent people being pronounced guilty balances the scales?

The real issue here is that wealthy people get off easily because they can afford good legal representation. Only poor people end up in docks because they could not afford the bail.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 11:55pm:
99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, the coppers know they have to bring the evidence to court before they have prospect of conviction.  Resources are limited and have to be allocated, its not even a case that every known crime is even going to be eventually prosecuted even though the perpertrators are known. Theres too much bias in court towards the rights of the accused also, theres an enormous amount of guilty people get off scott free compared to the extreme rarity of an innocent person being found guilty.

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:41am:


Are you serious?  Coppers bring anything they want to court in the expectation that it will be accepted without question - and it matters not one whit what the hard evidence is.

In any handling of law where the unsupported word of the accuser holds sway - 99% of those accused are innocent....

How can you say that many guilty get off scot free - when you yourself say they are 99% guilty? Do you imagine that all  such as yourself do not think the same?  And are not frightened of making a mistake and putting some beast out there again?  Or are not over-awed by the 'majesty' of the court where the judge/magistrate so obviously opposes the defendant and treats him with contempt - since the court does not sit there to work out guilt or innocence , but only to find out how much to take the poor bastard for and how fast it can be to find guilt?

SHOW ME?  You are mislead by propaganda and lies and television bullshit from America - the country with the highest rate of incarceration AND the highest rate of wrongful imprisonment.  SHOW ME one case where someone totally guilty has gotten off scot free!

SHOW ME, ian - ONE case you have sat on where you KNOW the defendant was guilty and got off - and tell me why and how.

Lay that case out here and now and SHOW ME the evidence.

Your lack of real experience is showing....

Do you seriously believe that everything a copper says is true?  10% of them suffer serious psychological and psychiatric issues - and many of those have an 'out' - claiming victimhood so as to ensure they get the 'mortgage buster' payout for stress etc when they have committed wrong themselves.

The Law demands PROOF - and proof is not some version of events unsupported by anything but what a fellow traveler says...

Once you allow that kind of evidence to hold sway - you just opened the door to the most virulent form of corruption imaginable.

Which of these 'guilty' people did you personally ever see do any of the things they were accused of?  How many times were you swayed by innuendo and attitude of prosecutors  and the deliberate placing of the accused in a guilty position in a dock etc, rather than PROVEN to the proper standard of fact?  How many times did you hear the same story from two police witnesses and assume they were telling the truth (a New Jersey Supreme court judge said that was proof of collusion).  How many times did you think "Oh - he looks a low-life after two days in the cells with the same clothes - he must be guilty"?  Or - "he wouldn't be here if he were not guilty"?  How many times have you heard a police officer say he/she was assaulted yet had not one iota of hard proof like bruise or uniform damage or even claim for injury to superiors or even ambulance or hospital staff at the time - and the defendant ended up in hospital?

You've sat on juries?  What possible evidence could tell you that 99% are guilty?  NOBODY is that good... and certainly no police force in this world is that good.. unless they are propped up by the most blatant prejudice, corruption and violence of dumb juries.

A good boxer always beats a grappler  they just dont have the reach

Watching a 1 minute video is not the same thing as sitting in a criminal trial for a week or so. You are asking them to make a judgement without hearing the evidence. What else are they going to judge on?

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 2:00am:


You are obviously ex police and your opinion on this matter has huge bias.