Australian Politics Forum - Jurors think docks mean guilt: research

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 77853
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #30 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:11pm

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

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

99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway,

why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you, you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty

Cheesy

actually Im basing my claim on seeing the evidence. .

you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum?

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #31 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:22pm

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 6:14pm:

Quote:

awww, your ego is challenged. isnt that cute. Despite this you will be getting very little personal information from me on an internet forum despite your obvious wih for it. way ahead of you pal

You have made the offering of personal information, suggesting some expertise which establishes credibility to what to me are absurdly outrageuos claims. Unless you can back up those assertions with some credentials worth taking note of, or some evidence, Members are entitled to conclude you are merely trolling.

grow up, I never reclaimed expertise. I claimed experience. Just because I dont offer my personal details on this forum does not mean I am trolling, so try your game and fragile ego on someone else.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #32 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:23pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

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

99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway,

why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you, you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty

Cheesy

actually Im basing my claim on seeing the evidence. .

you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum?

you want to engage in semantics, for what reason?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 77853
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #33 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 9:37pm

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

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

99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway,

why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you, you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty

Cheesy

actually Im basing my claim on seeing the evidence. .

you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum?

you want to engage in semantics, for what reason?

you are the one claiming 99% of those charged are guilty ... I simply want to know what you base that on

Have you seen the evidence showing they are guilty? or are you just making up crap again?

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

UnSubRocky Gold Member Offline Crocodile Hunter: Origins Posts: 25090 Rockhampton Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #34 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 10:11pm An innocent person can be convicted over a technicality. A guilty man can go free based on a technicality. I have heard of people getting convicted based on a misinterpretations of what was said, or a matter of the judge being casually satisfied that the prosecutor has proven a lie to be true.
Back to top	At this stage... IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #35 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 10:59pm

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

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

99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway,

why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you, you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty

Cheesy

actually Im basing my claim on seeing the evidence. .

you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum?

you want to engage in semantics, for what reason?

you are the one claiming 99% of those charged are guilty ... I simply want to know what you base that on

Have you seen the evidence showing they are guilty? or are you just making up crap again?

I was making crap up. Some times I make an indefensible statement and try and defend it just for the hell of it, I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works.. I still maintain however that the justice system is heavily biased in favor of the accused and I stand by my other comments. If people standing in a dock are much more likely to be convicted that doesnt necassarily mean that the innocent are getting found guilty, it could also mean simply that there is a higher rate of conviction of the guilty.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #36 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:02pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 10:11pm:

An innocent person can be convicted over a technicality. A guilty man can go free based on a technicality. I have heard of people getting convicted based on a misinterpretations of what was said, or a matter of the judge being casually satisfied that the prosecutor has proven a lie to be true.

what sort of technicality are you talking about, give an example.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39466 Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #37 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:04pm Quote: I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works.. Not trolling, ian?
Back to top	IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #38 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:09pm

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Quote:

I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works..

Not trolling, ian?

I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #39 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:15pm

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Quote:

I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works..

Not trolling, ian?

I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too.

That is a pretty good example/description of trolling. That's okay. We all learn. I did take you at face value. No longer. I'll
now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #40 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:17pm

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:15pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Quote:

I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works..

Not trolling, ian?

I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too.

That is a pretty good example/description of trolling. That's okay. We all learn. I did take you at face value. No longer. I'll
now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident.

Address the argument and not the person and you wont have to take anyone at "face value" , do you not understand this is the internet, I think anyone who posts too much personal information about themsleves is a clueless idiot. regardless, white flag accepted

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #41 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:28pm

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:15pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Quote:

I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works..

Not trolling, ian?

I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too.

That is a pretty good example/description of trolling. That's okay. We all learn. I did take you at face value. No longer. I'll
now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident.

Address the argument and not the person and you wont have to take anyone at "face value" , do you not understand this is the internet, I think anyone who posts too much personal information about themsleves is a clueless idiot. regardless, white flag accepted

It was you who was busy telling us of your personal information, and when asked for clarification, you lost your placid and went into mind bending rage.

Could you please recover quickly and express your 'argument' again this time distilling out all the trolling bits meant for the purposes of manipulation and rage induction.

There's a good chap.

Back to top

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25090
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #42 - Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:51pm

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:02pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 10:11pm:

An innocent person can be convicted over a technicality. A guilty man can go free based on a technicality. I have heard of people getting convicted based on a misinterpretations of what was said, or a matter of the judge being casually satisfied that the prosecutor has proven a lie to be true.

what sort of technicality are you talking about, give an example.

If the defendant gets caught up muddling his words, and is interpreted as having said something to imply guilt. Or having agreed that the prosecutor might have made a fair point about him in assuming a hypothetical situation. Being naive, assuming that they can prove their innocence later.

1. Lawyer: Did you assault this woman?
Defendant: No, I have not.
Lawyer: The victim had bruises all over her face, and she accuses you of assaulting her.
Defendant (interjecting): Prove it.

2. Lawyer: The defendant said that you had said that you asked him to burn a home down. Using the words "burn homes down". Is that true?
Defendant: I have also said (lecturing the lawyer without actually answering the question. Then answers the question in the negative).

Both answers would implicate guilt of an innocent defendant. But I would like to look this up of different examples.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #43 - Nov 9^th, 2014 at 12:36am

wouldnt call that technicality and in my experience defendants arent verballed in court but given a lot of leeway as far as language difficulties go. Magistrates deal with barely or illiterate defendants all day long, thats the norm rather than the exception. You might not be aware but the public can sit in on some court proceedings, might give you a bit of insight on how the system actually operates.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #44 - Nov 9^th, 2014 at 12:39am

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:28pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:15pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Quote:

I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works..

Not trolling, ian?

I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too.

That is a pretty good example/description of trolling. That's okay. We all learn. I did take you at face value. No longer. I'll
now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident.

Address the argument and not the person and you wont have to take anyone at "face value" , do you not understand this is the internet, I think anyone who posts too much personal information about themsleves is a clueless idiot. regardless, white flag accepted

It was you who was busy telling us of your personal information, and when asked for clarification, you lost your placid and went into mind bending rage.

Could you please recover quickly and express your 'argument' again this time distilling out all the trolling bits meant for the purposes of manipulation and rage induction.

There's a good chap.

I never get angry, you are confused. you got your panties in a bunch because you couldnt twist any personal information out of me, way ahead of you there pal. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged