Australian Politics Forum - Jurors think docks mean guilt: research

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #45 - Nov 9^th, 2014 at 12:42am

Quote:

Please post the personal information I supplied or be called a liar. either/ either.

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Ive sat through enough trials to have a reasoned opinion on this

Quote:

I have been a witness for the prosecution many times Does this help you out Grappler?

Quote:

ive seen the same nonsense repeated that aboriginal people are much more likely to be incarcerated because they are aboriginal. Nonsense, probably less likely because they have access to legal resources the rest of us dont.

Quote:

actually Im basing my claim on seeing the evidence. There are also a lot of crims who get nicked and convicted for crimes they didnt convict who turn around at the end of it, shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, Ive done plenty of stuff I have gotten away with so I probably deserve this one" very, very common and one of the reasons frustrated coppers sometimes fit up crims for crimes.

All that reads like someone claiming to have expertise/experience....yet you fail to explain what it is.

Ergo, self anointed Guru.

Already did that, ian.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #46 - Nov 9^th, 2014 at 12:44am still waiting for you to post personal information I have supplied rather than personal experiences. A lawyer would know the difference.
Back to top	IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #47 - Nov 9^th, 2014 at 12:45am my next bet is Aussie resorts to semantics.
Back to top	IP Logged

Rocketanski Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1335 Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #48 - Nov 9^th, 2014 at 7:00am I'm still waiting for Aussie (sic) to explain go me what the study is about.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Nov 9^th, 2014 at 10:26am by Rocketanski » IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88756
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #49 - Nov 9^th, 2014 at 10:13am

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.

There is a myth that people guilty get off on technicalities - a myth wrought by American television and movies... the reality is as I've stated many times:-

The US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, at 1 per 100 of the overall population - China is second with around one per two hundred (from memory now) and Australia is third at around one in five hundred or so (again memory).

Estimates on wrongful conviction run between one in a hundred from law persons to (wait for it) one in SIX based on information from defence lawyers etc and a study of the reasons many are convicted.

A good read - Ramsay updates and upgrades his dissertation, so the conclusions have varied over the years.

http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/docs/phd_dissertati...

My view is simple - knowing full well that the primary reason for conviction by magistrates (as opposed to juries here) is an utter willingness to accept the 'version of events of police" - the false conviction rate here could be as high as 50%, and the primary role of the 'courts' is ans always has been a form of rigid and violent social control (and of obtaining for itself the cash required, via for example traffic fines, to run itself!!) and NOT control of criminal behaviour.,

Again - my view is simple - we here in Australia are in desperate need of a full review of the magistracy and appellant judges and the way law is handled here - and there is a dire need to bring Law back under the control of the Law by guaranteeing full Rights as laid down by Law for any before a court, and making an abrogation of a Right (such as the acceptance of a prosecution version of events over the defence which is to be accorded by Law every doubt and not the other way) is grounds for immediate dismissal on appeal.

(Been telling yez for years we live in a country run by criminals who have no real concept or value of Law, justice and fair play and whose only interest is retaining their own position of privilege)

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25090
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #50 - Nov 10^th, 2014 at 9:36pm

ian wrote on 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.

The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline.

I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay.

I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context.

Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged.

So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

rhino

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17179
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #51 - Nov 10^th, 2014 at 11:17pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

ian wrote on 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.

The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline.

I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay.

I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context.

Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged.

So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition.

And the Nobel prize for fiction goes to .............

Back to top

IP Logged

UnSubRocky Gold Member Offline Crocodile Hunter: Origins Posts: 25090 Rockhampton Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #52 - Nov 10^th, 2014 at 11:24pm Well, then get f***ed, Rhino.
Back to top	At this stage... IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88756
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #53 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 8:47am

rhino wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 11:17pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

ian wrote on 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.

The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline.

I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay.

I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context.

Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged.

So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition.

And the Nobel prize for fiction goes to .............

Cal me when you next court appearance comes along.... then we'll talk about law and jurisprudence, Rhino...

If you've ever seen the chicaneries that pass for evidence and jurisprudence, you will never doubt a story again. I run Australia's Wrongfully Convicted and you would be amazed..... must be one hell of a lot of people out there intent on, for instance, getting a criminal record for assaulting police, something that can ruin your life, and not one shred of SUBSTANTIAL** corroborative evidence is ever produced.

You need a life....

You understand what is this Substantial? It means solid stuff and not just what people say, i.e. I advocate that it be mandatory that any 'version of events' MUST be supported by substance or it cannot carry the day, and there is a dire need for this to be immediately brought into jurisprudence and Law.

That would instantly demolish countless 'cases' brought against ordinary citizens, but since it would chop State revenue and also cut down on the social control element of 'law' here, such a move is highly unlikely to happen with our current governments.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41066
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #54 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:45am

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

ian wrote on 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.

The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline.

I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay.

I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context.

Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged.

So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition.

I'ld believe that unsub.
In the court, the Judge rules.
They are very impressed with their own self importance.

NEVER EVER get on the bad side of a judge would be my advice.

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #55 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:47am

Quote:

It means solid stuff and not just what people say, i.e. I advocate that it be mandatory that any 'version of events' MUST be supported by substance or it cannot carry the day, and there is a dire need for this to be immediately brought into jurisprudence and Law.

I agree with that concept. It always amazed me, in circumstances when it all boiled down to just two versions of events, especially where one was a copper's ~ the other was the defendant's, and where there was an onus upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the copper's version could be 'preferred' and a conviction ensue in the complete absence of anything objective to support either version.

By what devine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version? Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

Back to top

IP Logged

MumboJumbo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1474
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #56 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 11:16am

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

By what dvine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version? Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

It wasn't the bench they mounted

Oh, and Aussie, you were asking about Ian's "expertise". It can be pretty easily be inferred from his earlier posts. What kind of person would regularly be appearing as a Crown witness? Assuming that ian isn't serially raped/beaten up, he must be a professional witness. He isn't clever enough to be any kind of scientific expert, which suggests a copper. This fits quite nicely with his demonstrated pro-State bias and his mentality.

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 9^th, 2014 at 7:00am:

I'm still waiting for Aussie (sic) to explain go [i]to me what the study is about.

Or you could just, you know, read it yourself. Since you're on this forum all day, you clearly have the time to. Only question is, will you comprehend it?

Back to top

See Profile For Update wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:58pm:

Why the bugger did I get stuck on a planet chalked full of imbeciles?

IP Logged

MumboJumbo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1474
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #57 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 11:17am

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

By what divine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version? Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

It wasn't the bench they mounted

Oh, and Aussie, you were asking about Ian's "expertise". It can be pretty easily be inferred from his earlier posts. What kind of person would regularly be appearing as a Crown witness? Assuming that ian isn't serially raped/beaten up, he must be a professional witness. He isn't clever enough to be any kind of scientific expert, which suggests a copper. This fits quite nicely with his demonstrated pro-State bias and his mentality.

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 9^th, 2014 at 7:00am:

I'm still waiting for Aussie (sic) to explain go to me what the study is about.

Or you could just, you know, read it yourself. Since you're on this forum all day, you clearly have the time to. Only question is, will you comprehend it?

Back to top

See Profile For Update wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:58pm:

Why the bugger did I get stuck on a planet chalked full of imbeciles?

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41066
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #58 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 12:06pm

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

Quote:

It means solid stuff and not just what people say, i.e. I advocate that it be mandatory that any 'version of events' MUST be supported by substance or it cannot carry the day, and there is a dire need for this to be immediately brought into jurisprudence and Law.

I agree with that concept. It always amazed me, in circumstances when it all boiled down to just two versions of events, especially where one was a copper's ~ the other was the defendant's, and where there was an onus upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the copper's version could be 'preferred' and a conviction ensue in the complete absence of anything objective to support either version.

By what devine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version? Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

they are the Judge.

Also, basically the cops and the Judges are on the same side.

So if you are a defendant in a court, you have a very powerful adversery against you.

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88756
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #59 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 12:08pm

Ian is tending towards the light side of the Force (sic) in his tenure here.... we've had our arguments but he is basically a reasonable person who perhaps has had a lop-sided 'education' in life....

I hold high hopes for his future as a thinking human being, though it is significant that his '99% are guilty' dovetails neatly with Ramsay Ph.D's dissertation and facts, where 'law enforcement' see only a 1% Wrongful Conviction rate... and stand alone there apart from judges who far too often see themselves as part of some 'thin blue line' - instead of the Thin Black Line of Law Itself as posited by none other than Yours Truly....

BTW - Aussie - Law (capital L) also requires that any and all benefit of doubt must go to the defence. In the case of two differing versions of events and without substantial corroborating evidence, a dismissal is mandatory under Law - if not law.

The State/States is/are unlikely to adopt that mandated requirement of Law for the simple reason that it would immediately cut off 99% (sic - had to get that in) of traffic fines which make up 99% (sic) of the revenue required to actually run the courts and the police.

Such a blatant corrupt handling of Law and conflict of interest is in dire need of immediate euthanasia according to Law, and a massive re-education program for magistrates/judges is in order.

Wait until the bill comes in for repayment at today's rates, and restitution for all those wrongfully convicted in the past..... there is not enough cash in the tills... so I would suggest that the optimum course for legislators right now is to MAKE this Law Law as it should be - and remove from all held records all past events based on this wrongful mode of conviction.

Better now than later when the People Power movement comes into play and there is a demand for compensation to the aggrieved victims......

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 11^th, 2014 at 12:16pm by Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged