NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12
th, 2020 at 10:42am:
Captain Nemo wrote on Apr 7
th, 2020 at 11:37am:
For all the difficulties ... I think a jury system where 12 people good and true sit for days hearing evidence and come to a conclusion about guilt or innocence is the best system.
I'd say the fatal flaw in the jury system (as solid as it can be) is that you're asking ordinary citizens to be experts of all kinds.
If the prosecution and the defence doesn't do the 'heavy lifting' (or enough of it) in that respect then a verdict is going to be unsafe.
The fact is mot people in the country and around the world are convinced (with good reason) that churches (and not only the Catholic church... It occurs everywhere including within Hasidic communities), cover up abuse of children... And not only within churches and closed religious communities, but within any organisation where abusers have access to children.
While its not improbable that 95% of those in positions of authority do not, have not and will not ever abuse children, there's always the 5%.
And those 5% no doubt are likely cunning enough to protect themselves against accusers by keeping dirt files on those who don't abuse children, but commit other crimes or misconduct, like cooking the books, theft, involvement in organised crime etc... etc...
Whistle blowing's a tough call when whistleblowers themselves have unclean hands.
Well, I have been there a zillion times and I do not share the same faith some have in Juries. They are totally unaccountable. Their privacy is defended, their deliberations in the Jury Room are protected, and no-one may lawfully ask a Member of a Jury what happened in the Jury Room. Once they are in there, they are a life-changing force of their own, and open to all sorts of the usual interactions between the strong and the weak, those who want to do the job, those who want to go home, those who want to be Sherlock Holmes and those who can't be arsed....and on.
I lost my faith in them many decades ago. I represented a bloke who was charged with 'dangerous driving causing death.' There was an underlying charge of 'dangerous driving.'
There was no doubt, and I never put it even into the ring that my client's driving did not cause the death. It was never up for grabs. That was a given.
The real challenge was whether what my client did was in Law, dangerous driving. It really was not, but, it was arguable and left to the Jury. So, they went to that Room to determine whether my client was guilty of 'dangerous driving causing death.' It was never in question that what happened caused the death.
Dangerous driving causing death will bring a jail term. Dangerous driving (no death) is not likely to attract a jail sentence.
So....what did they come back with?
Guilty of dangerous driving simpliciter. Jayzuz. I just shook my head in time with the Judge and the Prosecutor. Just absurd.
So.......please....Juries are well able to go rogue and decide their own system of Justice, no matter how stupid.
Forum
Pages: 
